IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay marriage , judicial activism charges

Reply
Old 3rd April 2009, 11:46 AM   #1
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 11:50 AM   #2
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Of course it will fail. Most new amendments to the Constitution have expanded people's rights, not take rights away from them.

Am I correct in saying that the courts have consistently said that marriage is indeed a right?
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 11:50 AM   #3
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,573
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.
I know you find it absolutely horrible that yet another state will give same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples, but you should at least get your facts straight before you start foaming at the mouth.

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned it based on the Iowa Constitution, not the Federal one.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 11:52 AM   #4
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 13,055
Although a particular issue may be "popular" and have widespread support, sometimes that old Constitution does get in the way... There is that old "Tyranny of the Majority" idea.

In regards to marriage, it seems to me that the constitutional arguments being made are that the state cannot deny a particular class of people something that the rest have access to, especially if the denial is on the basis of already-defined criteria like "race, religion, sexual orientation..."

Although "gay marriage may be wildly unpopular in many areas, the notion that this poses some existential threat to culture, marriage, or whatever is fanciful at best. No law is going to require say, the Catholics to perform such marriages; they would be civil or take place in religious settings that were accepting.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 11:56 AM   #5
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.
Certainly anyone who wants to deprive their fellow-citizens of their civil rights would be best advised to start by changing the Constitution. Though I note that in this particular case it is the constitution of the state of Iowa that acts as a guarantor of civil liberties. Perhaps you could figure out some way to abolish it.

Quote:
Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public.
Relax. The courts are not going to "force" gay marriage on anyone.

Of course, the courts might permit it. But anyone who doesn't wish to avail him or her self of this liberty will of course be free not to do so.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 12:54 PM   #6
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.
Is that similar to how they "magically" found a right for interracial couples to get married?

Nothing magical about human rights. The thing about human rights (equal protection under the law, and so on) is that they apply to all humans, not just the ones you personally approve of.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 12:55 PM   #7
iiwo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 162
If the roles were reversed, and only homosexuals were allowed to marry (though heterosexuals were the reproducers--let's just change one variable: the culture and not the biology for this thought experiment) what would your thoughts be?

Would heterosexual couples want the right to get married? Why? And what arguments might be used against it?

How might your reaction to such a thought experiment be used to construct an argument in favor of homosexual marriage? (we're back in real life now)
iiwo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 12:57 PM   #8
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Of course it will fail. Most new amendments to the Constitution have expanded people's rights, not take rights away from them.
I'm pretty sure the only amendment to he U.S. Constitution to take away rights was Prohibition, and it was repealed by a subsequent amendment relatively quickly and generally considered to have been a big mistake and an all around failure.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 12:57 PM   #9
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,061
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
The people can't pass unconstitutional laws. So the system is working as designed.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 01:04 PM   #10
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
I'd like to interject my own take on the issue in general. I think the heart of the problem is really an entanglement between church & state.

I think as long as we give state recognition to religious rituals (or have ministers, priests, rabbis and such acting as agents of the state when they perform what they view as a religious rite or sacrament), there will be people who think they have the right to impose their religious view of marriage onto others.

I think the best solution would be to ban the legal recognition of church rituals. Legal marriage should be done by a matter of civil procedure (and I think the oaths and ceremony aren't necessary). You can do any marriage ritual you want in your church, but it should get no legal standing whatsoever.

There are already models of this in our society. Catholics, for example, don't recognize divorce. So if you want to dissolve a Catholic marriage, there are two parts--the legal/civil divorce and the Church's annulment. That annulment gets no legal/civil recognition at all. Also, there was a time when naming a baby was done as a religious ritual. Now we've separated the legal naming of a baby (done with documents) and church rituals like christening or baptism. The church rituals have no legal standing whatsoever, I believe.

Once these separations are made, then I don't think there will be any issue left about "defending" one's religious idea of marriage from some perceived homosexual agenda.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 3rd April 2009 at 01:05 PM.
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 01:06 PM   #11
HarryKeogh
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public.
I hope not. I really would hate to have to marry my auto mechanic.
HarryKeogh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 01:10 PM   #12
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.
This as much magic as any sufficiently advanced technology is magic to those who are less advanced.

Grow up.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 01:28 PM   #13
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public.
Yup... And I heard somewhere that they reserved Rush Limbaugh to be your new hubby.

At least you'll have things to talk about...
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 04:47 PM   #14
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
Things I think I think....

For many of us stinkin' commie pinko patriots, it requires no magic to find human rights. The US Constitution specifically states what rights we gave up to the government and then makes it clear that we kept any not mentioned. The basic human right to love another with openess and dignity dates from thousands of years past and not from the whims of legistlators.

Although on a much lighter note, the problem with the Iowa law was it defined marriage as being between amana and a woman and Ames objected.
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 04:50 PM   #15
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
Gay gay go away
Get married in Iowa it's okay!
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2009, 06:34 PM   #16
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
Cross-reference to a thread that discusses the issues.
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
-- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North

"Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice
Brown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:55 AM   #17
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by iiwo View Post
If the roles were reversed, and only homosexuals were allowed to marry (though heterosexuals were the reproducers--let's just change one variable: the culture and not the biology for this thought experiment) what would your thoughts be?
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:00 AM   #18
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,573
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
Are you *********** serious?

This "argument" is beyond ridiculous.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:06 AM   #19
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Quote:
For many of us stinkin' commie pinko patriots, it requires no magic to find human rights. The US Constitution specifically states what rights we gave up to the government and then makes it clear that we kept any not mentioned. The basic human right to love another with openess and dignity dates from thousands of years past and not from the whims of legistlators.
Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:06 AM   #20
Cobalt
Tobikan Judan
 
Cobalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
I really love your posts, but this one seems to be reaching quite a long ways.
__________________
oh he got the mango sentinel
Cobalt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:13 AM   #21
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Are you *********** serious?

This "argument" is beyond ridiculous.
Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:17 AM   #22
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by Cobalt View Post
I really love your posts, but this one seems to be reaching quite a long ways.
Don't be so sure, Cobalt. If nothing else, Islamic and mormon groups will now push harder and harder for legalizing polygamy.

Sure, they have a long way to go. But the principle -- that there is a "right" to marriage and ANY restriction on it is "unconstitutional" and will be struck down no matter what the people think -- greatly eases their task.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:21 AM   #23
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.


Is Rush treating you kindly?
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:30 AM   #24
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,573
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Is it?
Quite.

Quote:
I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.
Gay marriage hasn't been forced on anyone.

Quote:
I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.
Somehow, I don't think you were told anything of the sort. Your connection to reality seems nebulous at best.

Quote:
So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.
Yep. Ridiculous.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:32 AM   #25
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,573
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Don't be so sure, Cobalt. If nothing else, Islamic and mormon groups will now push harder and harder for legalizing polygamy.
You're just dead-set on driving as far down Kook Highway as you possibly can, aren't you?

Quote:
Sure, they have a long way to go. But the principle -- that there is a "right" to marriage and ANY restriction on it is "unconstitutional" and will be struck down no matter what the people think -- greatly eases their task.
The Iowa court ruled based on the Iowa state Constitution, not the Federal one. Why are you unable to grasp this simple, simple fact?
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:33 AM   #26
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
So much for states rights...
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:33 AM   #27
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,573
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.
Your grasp of reality is exceeded only by your ability to read minds.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:35 AM   #28
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,429
Quote:
I think as long as we give state recognition to religious rituals (or have ministers, priests, rabbis and such acting as agents of the state when they perform what they view as a religious rite or sacrament), there will be people who think they have the right to impose their religious view of marriage onto others.

I think the best solution would be to ban the legal recognition of church rituals. Legal marriage should be done by a matter of civil procedure (and I think the oaths and ceremony aren't necessary). You can do any marriage ritual you want in your church, but it should get no legal standing whatsoever.
I generally agree, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
BTW I would not "Ban" legal recognition of church rituals per se. I would make it a voluntary contract, binding in civil law like any other contract,if the parties so choose,but not have the ritual automatically legally binding as it is now.
Anyway you language is a little loaded. Your dislike of religon comes through, and if you are making this argument to somebody who is not a athiest/secluarits/whatever, if might turn him or her off. It's not what you say, but how you say it.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 11:43 AM   #29
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with incest, provided both parties are of the age to consent. Some states define marriage of first cousins as incest. Some don't. I don't think much of bigamy since it's sort of a fraud, but I have no issue with polygamy. Can you state any valid objection to these practices?
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 12:06 PM   #30
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.
Have you read the legal opinion? I am told it runs 69 pages, and the judges in question agreed unanimously. There was no dissent. There is a nice summary of much of the legal reasoning in the other thread. Surprisingly, there is not one reference to magic.


Quote:
Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
If you read the judge's ruling, they conclude that equal protection cannot be infringed without a compelling social benefit. They then went through all the arguments the county made for a compelling social benefit and found them wanting. If polygamy would, as you claim, mean "buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy", then I suspect the same justices examining polygamy might find that there was a compelling social benefit to outlawing it, and thus uphold bans on polygamy as constitutional.

Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!
As above, laws against father-daughter incest would probably be found to have a compelling social benefit that outweighs the loss of freedom, and thus could be held as constitutional. Although I cannot speak for the Iowa supreme court, who might decide differently. All I can say is that I agree with their reasoning in the gay marriage case.

Quote:
Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.
because the situations are not identical.

There may come a time when polygamy is allowed in Western society. The God of the Old Testament does not seem to have had a problem with it. It raises an entirely different set of issues, however. When 3 or more people decide to marry there is the question of divorce, for example. Who decides? Need it be unanimous? Majority rule?

Quote:
Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.
Part of the rule of law is the ability of the courts to find that a particular law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, Iowa could pass a law demanding that you forfeit your property for the crime of belonging to the wrong religion. When courts do not have this power, even an elected government can become tyrannical. See Germany in the 1930's, for example.

Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.
Do you have citations? Because the people who told you this, assuming that you have not constructed them from whole cloth, were idiots.
Quote:
So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.
Give me a call when someone forces you into an incestuous polygamous homosexual marriage. You get an extra point if it involves a goat.

gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 01:22 PM   #31
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.
Because it boils down to equal protection under the laws. And since there are no groups currently allowed to be polygamists or incestuaous in the US this is not a factor.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 01:44 PM   #32
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Let's pretend, for a moment, that Skeptic's drivel isn't just pure bigotry.

Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...
How in the world would legalized polygamy lead to the end of "women's equality"?
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:00 PM   #33
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How in the world would legalized polygamy lead to the end of "women's equality"?
Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable! It's as absurd as legalizing gay marriage!



This thread is a hoot...
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:12 PM   #34
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable! It's as absurd as legalizing gay marriage!
Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?

Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:23 PM   #35
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?

Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.
Just try following him in one of the Israeli-Palestinian threads.
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:34 PM   #36
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,525
There is a push on to amend the Iowa constitution:

Quote:
The only other recourse for overturning the decision is a state constitutional amendment, which would take at least two years to be adopted.

At least one group opposed to same-sex marriage, the Liberty Counsel, said it plans to advance a referendum to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions. "The Iowa Supreme Court has become a proselytizing engine of radical social change," said Mathew D. Staver, the group's founder. "Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture and harm children."
It is of course a gift to Mike Huckabee, in terms of how it affects the 2012 race (assuming Huck runs). It virtually assures that Iowa religious conservatives will be galvanized.

I do think that the decision to push this through the court system is a mistake, rather than letting it be handled by state legislatures. As the article notes, Vermont has passed gay marriage legislation in both the house and the senate, and although the Republican governor has said he will veto it, at some point either the legislature will come up with sufficient votes to override the veto, or a new governor will be elected.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:39 PM   #37
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?
Because then all women would be forced to be second wives, including the first ones!!!. You know, just like Iowan heterosexuals are at this very moment being forced to marry other heterosexuals. There's a special division of the Black Helicopters dedicated to just that.

Quote:
Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.
Come on.... you know better than that. It's Skeptic!
__________________
Stupid is depressing...

Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:48 PM   #38
iiwo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
{snip}

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
1. If there is nothing in the constitution banning gay marriage how can it be made illegal? If this, or any other right, is afforded only to some, how can "all" be able to pursue happiness, etc?

To be certain, the constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage. Neither does it say anything about traveling on airplanes to other states without a passport. The constitution is not so much a set of specific laws as a guideline within laws must be framed. Requiring that I carry my passport to visit another city/state/province within my country (in this case, the US) would be silly--especially if YOU were able to do the same WITHOUT being required to show your passport.

I know marriage is a slightly different issue legally, but the same concept applies--if the constitution not only fails to ban it, but expressly requires that the rights of one are the rights of all...how can the rights of one be only the rights of some?

2. If legal polygamous marriages were allowed for some groups, the rest of us would have a riot and say "why them, I want a plural marriage too!". And guess what!? We would absolutely be in our rights to do so!

The government recognizes polygamous marriages for NO ONE. This was a significant part of Utah becoming a state--as a territory they recognized the plural marriages of the Latter Day Saints. The Federal Government did not; and in outlawing plural marriage the government was well within its constitutional right.

On the other hand, the US government could have said "we recognize the right of any one person to enter a marriage with one or more persons of their choosing regardless of race or creed" and guess what? It would have been just as constitutional. Now there were other issues involved, and legally plural marriages would be a mess, but in the end...that could have happened and still been legal. Not easy, but legal and easy are not always the same thing. (Nor, as you mentioned, is personal preference).

3. What about women's rights? I'm sure there would be some adjustement time, but plural marriage is no more damning to women's rights than single-hood or 'normal' marriage. Alternatively, what if one woman chose to date and marry several men simultaneously?

Your comment seems to suggest multiple women would be subjected to living in the same house with one man, and be subject to him. What if men were the ones subject?

Or what if two men and three women all married each other? What of women's rights then?


Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.
It may well. Whoever you talked to may have been ill informed, after all--there's a reason laws such as Prop 8 in California and the one struck down recently in Iowa exist: someone made them precisely because there *was* no such [explicit] law already in existence.

Perhaps a better option would be to make marriage not recognized by the state at all? Make civil unions the way to get tax benefits and co-signed loans, mortgages, etc. Issues related to wills, death/medical choices, etc can be arranged for outside of marriage. The few things that marriage does accommodate above and beyond any other legal document or relationship could be accommodated in some other fashion (indicate on your driver's license who can see you in the emergency room, for [one poorly considered] example).
iiwo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:54 PM   #39
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.
For that matter, where is straight marriage magically found in the Constitution? If straight marriage is magically found there, so is gay marriage.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 02:55 PM   #40
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable!
So unthinkable that there's a word for it: polyandry.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.