Wow.. Now I can Marry Him

[LindaElane]

Because the former is barring them from engaging in unrelated conduct based on their individual status. The other is state validation of certain actions or relationships. For example, I do think it would be lawful, though repugnant, for a state to bar students who engage in homosexual sex. But not because they "are" a homosexual.

Because it's a law, so the question is one of legality. Just because a person wants to make a different choice than the law permits does not make the law violative of equal protection.

I don't think that's consistent with your former arguments. You believe the court was right in "Loving". Yet it is a choice, not a characteristic, to have relations (a marriage relationship and/or sexual relations) with a person of another race.

I think you are implying that it is fine for states to bar homosexual marriage because they deem it immoral. (Morality is indeed a basis for the law in certain circumstances. )

However, states also barred interracial marriage at one time because they deemed it immoral. It was actually a moral concept of non-discrimination that brought about change. The morality of non-discrimination trumped any supposed morality of non-miscegenation.

My point is, this was non-discrimination both in (inborn) race, and in choices of certain actions based on race, i.e., the choice to have relations with a person of a different race. It took a court to bring this about, and you thought it was good.

In a parallel manner we should not discriminate against homosexuals both in being born members of a certain group, and in certain conduct based upon that fact.

[Tempra]

I don't think that's consistent with your former arguments. You believe the court was right in "Loving". Yet it is a choice, not a characteristic, to have relations (a marriage relationship and/or sexual relations) with a person of another race.

I think you are implying that it is fine for states to bar homosexual marriage because they deem it immoral. (Morality is indeed a basis for the law in certain circumstances. )

However, states also barred interracial marriage at one time because they deemed it immoral. It was actually a moral concept of non-discrimination that brought about change. The morality of non-discrimination trumped any supposed morality of non-miscegenation.

My point is, this was non-discrimination both in (inborn) race, and in choices of certain actions based on race, i.e., the choice to have relations with a person of a different race. It took a court to bring this about, and you thought it was good.

In a parallel manner we should not discriminate against homosexuals both in being born members of a certain group, and in certain conduct based upon that fact.

The problem you're having is that you're not accepting that marriage is between one man and one woman (this is the law under DOMA).

If you tell a black man that he cannot marry a white woman because he is black, that is unconstitutional discrimination.

If you tell a homosexual man that he cannot marry a homosexual (or heterosexual) female because he is a homosexual, that is unconstitutional discrimination. This is is the proper analogy to Loving.

Gay marriage is NOT "marriage" as defined by (federal) law.

[LindaElane]

The problem you're having is that you're not accepting that marriage is between one man and one woman (this is the law under DOMA).

If you tell a black man that he cannot marry a white woman because he is black, that is unconstitutional discrimination.

If you tell a homosexual man that he cannot marry a homosexual (or heterosexual) female because he is a homosexual, that is unconstitutional discrimination. This is is the proper analogy to Loving.

Gay marriage is NOT "marriage" as defined by (federal) law.

No: Here is the relevent text of DOMA

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

It does not define marriage. It says that when determining the meaning of certain acts of the U. S. government, marriage "means", in that case, the union of one man and one woman. Which make sense, since when those acts were written, the government was referring to that.

Also, it is refering to past acts of congress, etc. If congress eventually passes a law in favor of gay marriage, then the word "marriage" won't mean one man, one woman, in that law.

PS: If you would like to transfer this discussion to the gay marriage thread, please feel free.

[zollo]

Good for you LP - here is hoping you get your wish sooner rather than later. :thumbsup:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree. Instead, I want judges telling "the rest of us" that you can't make laws based solely on any morality, even that of the majority of voters.

Then they'd be making shit up, because the Constitution doesn't contain that limitation, especially at the state level. And sorry, but I think almost any social welfare program is out the window if you can't enact laws based solely on morality. If you recall the health care debate, the bottom line for you guys was that it would be cruel or heartless to leave people without coverage. That is a fundamentally moral conclusion.

[mormont]

FLOW: a couple of points.

First, call it a matter of public policy if you like, but the fact remains that in this case you're guilty of saying that you prefer a meaningless technical equality of outcome to actual equal opportunity, a position you would not normally adopt. This does suggest that you are reasoning backwards from your preferred conclusion, I'm afraid.

Second, the issue of whether this is a point of law or public policy is not as clear-cut as you imply. Part of my point is that any ruling on this appeal is profoundly political, and to pretend otherwise would be hypocritical. 'Originalism' is a limited defence in this case, nothing more than a fig-leaf, in fact.

The claim that 'the law treats people equally' in this case is absurd, akin to saying that a law that required you to have a penis to vote would not be discriminating against women. Proposition 8 was very clearly and explicitly intended to discriminate against gay men and women. The little evidence the proponents did give explicitly discussed the matter in those terms, and tried (and failed) to justify that discrimination.

The issue is discrimination against a particular group. So far as I can see, for the Court to uphold the appeal on the grounds that technically, the law treats everyone as equal, they would have to ignore almost every word not only in the ruling but also in the evidence, and substitute their own view of the case instead.

This, I think, is the problem with your analysis: it's based on the questions you wish had been asked in the case, not the actual questions that the proponents, the plaintiffs, and the judge discussed.

[Ser Reptitious]

Tracker,

Note to Ser Reptitious: You and I have gone round and round about your contention that all laws are morally based, and no matter how many countervailing examples I provide you still hew to that opinion. So let's just agree to disagree on that issue and move along.

Are you confusing me with someone else? (perhaps Galactus?) Unless I did some drunk posting that I don't recall, I don't remember ever having a discussion with you on this. Nor do I think that all laws are morally based (I'm more of an advocate of the 'harm principle' myself), so I'd surprise myself by taking such a position.

[TrackerNeil]

Then they'd be making shit up, because the Constitution doesn't contain that limitation, especially at the state level. And sorry, but I think almost any social welfare program is out the window if you can't enact laws based solely on morality. If you recall the health care debate, the bottom line for you guys was that it would be cruel or heartless to leave people without coverage. That is a fundamentally moral conclusion.

Actually, FLoW, I made the argument that since we are already paying to care for the uninsured, we needed a system that allowed us to pay smart and not stupid. That's not a moral argument but a fiscal one, so you might want to amend "you guys" to exclude me. I think that there are moral arguments in favor of UHC, but I think the secular reasons are enough to win the day. And that's as it should be.

Ser Reptitious: Sorry, got you confused with someone else. I'll amend my post.

[mormont]

Let me add one thing, by the way:

Regardless of what happens next, gay marriage is coming. It's coming to the US, the UK, Australia, and every other civilised country. And not 'civil unions' or any other nonsense, but marriage.

Why? Because as this judgment elegantly shows, there is not a single respectable, rational argument against it. Not one.

[Tempra]

No: Here is the relevent text of DOMA

It does not define marriage. It says that when determining the meaning of certain acts of the U. S. government, marriage "means", in that case, the union of one man and one woman. Which make sense, since when those acts were written, the government was referring to that.

Also, it is refering to past acts of congress, etc. If congress eventually passes a law in favor of gay marriage, then the word "marriage" won't mean one man, one woman, in that law.

PS: If you would like to transfer this discussion to the gay marriage thread, please feel free.

I see no distinction other than the use of the word "means" instead of "defined as."

And, of course, subsequent legislation redefining marriage would overrule DOMA.

And what gay marriage thread do you mean? US Politics? We got kicked out of US politics to discuss gay marriage here.

[Shryke]

Actually, FLoW, I made the argument that since we are already paying to care for the uninsured, we needed a system that allowed us to pay smart and not stupid. That's not a moral argument but a fiscal one, so you might want to amend "you guys" to exclude me. I think that there are moral arguments in favor of UHC, but I think the secular reasons are enough to win the day. And that's as it should be.

Indeed. I see selective memory going on here. Or perhaps just someone not having understood the argument in the first place. The long standing argument from the vast majority of people on this board was a FISCAL one. And always has been.

Shit, this is where the whole "USA: Unique Snowflake" meme came from, as the only way the anti-UHC crowd could beat the fiscal argument that was always always brought up was to claim that even though it worked in every other country, it wouldn't work in the US.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

Then they'd be making shit up, because the Constitution doesn't contain that limitation, especially at the state level. And sorry, but I think almost any social welfare program is out the window if you can't enact laws based solely on morality. If you recall the health care debate, the bottom line for you guys was that it would be cruel or heartless to leave people without coverage. That is a fundamentally moral conclusion.

I completely agree. Anytime you make a law, or start a program, you're doing so because you believe that it should be done, or in any case that it should be done more than it should not be done.

ETA: Seeing here the attempt to frame the argument for UHC as a fiscal one rather than a moral one, I'm moved to ask what is it which qualifies a fiscal problem and distinguishes it from a moral one? Doesn't morality touch on everything we do? Isn't fiscal responsibility a duty of any legislation? Or do we suggest it is possible to spend without limit, so long as our purpose is moral?

[LindaElane]

I see no distinction other than the use of the word "means" instead of "defined as."

And, of course, subsequent legislation redefining marriage would overrule DOMA.

And what gay marriage thread do you mean? US Politics? We got kicked out of US politics to discuss gay marriage here.

I did not think you read DOMA carefully, and now I do not think you read what I said carefully. I never said the distinction was not between "means" and "defined as". To go over it again:

quote from DOMA: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means....."

Do you see that there is a clause? DOMA dies not "define marriage" as you claimed. Do you see that marriage "means" one man/one woman only when used in certain ways?

This is a mere "common sense" regulation that says any US marriage laws at present refer to one man/one woman Of course this circumstantially limited definition it is only up to the time if and when gay marriage becomes legal.

Furthermore, I do not think we got "kicked out" of the US Politics thread. I'm happy to be here. Major issues deserve their own thread and it has *never* been the rule, as far as I know, that anything remotely related to US Politics has to go in a single ghetto thread.

I have missed a great deal of pleasure over the years because I did not chose to cope with the unpleasantries of digging out the posts on the aspect of US Politics I wanted to respond to from a 400 post thread. I wish people would always start separate political threads about major issues.

"US Politics" was supposed to be for quite minor points, or for non-specific discussion. At one time, there was a restriction which ran "only one thread on the US Election" but there has never been on that said "only one thread on US Politics'.

Continuing to post major political ideas on "US Politics" will only result in more confusing thread transfer.

Edit: Tempra, your quote of me above is missing my quote of DOMA, which would be confusing to any skimmers. So people should read my original post and not just the part you quoted.

[Tempra]

I did not think you read DOMA carefully, and now I do not think you read what I said carefully. I never said the distinction was not between "means" and "defined as". To go over it again:

quote from DOMA: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means....."

Do you see that there is a clause? DOMA dies not "define marriage" as you claimed. Do you see that marriage "means" one man/one woman only when used in certain ways?

This is a mere "common sense" regulation that says any US marriage laws at present refer to one man/one woman Of course this circumstantially limited definition it is only up to the time if and when gay marriage becomes legal.

I have no clue what distinction you are trying to draw here. DOMA says that for all federal laws ("any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies") marriage is defined ("means") as a union between one man and one woman.

I seriously do not understand how you can parse the very language you have quoted to mean anything other than that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This does not mean that marriage will always mean a union of one man and one woman. Congress can pass a law tomorrow that defines marriage as a union of two men, two women, or three or more consenting adults. When that happens, DOMA will be superseded.

Furthermore, I do not think we got "kicked out" of the US Politics thread. I'm happy to be here. Major issues deserve their own thread and it has *never* been the rule, as far as I know, that anything remotely related to US Politics has to go in a single ghetto thread.

I have missed a great deal of pleasure over the years because I did not chose to cope with the unpleasantries of digging out the posts on the aspect of US Politics I wanted to respond to from a 400 post thread. I wish people would always start separate political threads about major issues.

"US Politics" was supposed to be for quite minor points, or for non-specific discussion. At one time, there was a restriction which ran "only one thread on the US Election" but there has never been on that said "only one thread on US Politics'.

Continuing to post major political ideas on "US Politics" will only result in more confusing thread transfer.

A mod told us to take discussion to this thread. You said move it to the gay marriage thread. I do not see a gay marriage thread other than this one.

Edit: Tempra, your quote of me above is missing my quote of DOMA, which would be confusing to any skimmers. So people should read my original post and not just the part you quoted.

Yes, it is an unfortunate problem that quotes within a quote do not appear.

[LindaElane]

I have no clue what distinction you are trying to draw here. DOMA says that for all federal laws ("any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies") marriage is defined ("means") as a union between one man and one woman.

I seriously do not understand how you can parse the very language you have quoted to mean anything other than that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This does not mean that marriage will always mean a union of one man and one woman. Congress can pass a law tomorrow that defines marriage as a union of two men, two women, or three or more consenting adults. When that happens, DOMA will be superseded.

A mod told us to take discussion to this thread. You said move it to the gay marriage thread. I do not see a gay marriage thread other than this one.

Yes, it is an unfortunate problem that quotes within a quote do not appear.

I am frustrated trying to communicate with you, Tempra.

You say above "DOMA says that for all federal laws ("any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies") marriage is defined ("means") as a union between one man and one woman."

In the next paragraph you say "I seriously do not understand how you can parse the very language you have quoted to mean anything other than that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman."

(underlines mine)

Did you never play "Simon says"? In this case "DOMA says" does not make it so, overall.

The word marriage is not "defined as a union between one man and one woman" in fact, those words are lifted out of context and are not what congress never said. Words taken out of context can make false statements, which is what they do in this case.

The word marriage "in any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies" is defined as the union of one man and one woman: under those limited circumstances. Can't you see the difference?

You are speaking as if (1) the fact that congress used the words "union of one man and one woman" in some limited sense has any bearing at all on the constitutionality or lack thereof, of gay marriage.

You almost seem to be speaking as if (2) no law can be passed favoring gay marriage because (as you seem to claim) DOMA says marriage is between the opposite gendered always and forever in every place in the USA.

I think it is quite sad that you believe congress has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and you do see the limits which they set on this definition.

This is my third attempt to help you see that DOMA cannot establish the definition of marriage, except for certain limited legal circumstances enumerated above. I shall not make another one. I give up.

[Balefont]

Let me add one thing, by the way:

Regardless of what happens next, gay marriage is coming. It's coming to the US, the UK, Australia, and every other civilised country. And not 'civil unions' or any other nonsense, but marriage.

Why? Because as this judgment elegantly shows, there is not a single respectable, rational argument against it. Not one.

Yep, just like equal rights for woman and civil rights. It's a matter of time and the more effort put towards the gay rights movement, the faster this will happen.

Thank you for saying that, Mormont. :)

[Tempra]

I am frustrated trying to communicate with you, Tempra.

You say above "DOMA says that for all federal laws ("any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies") marriage is defined ("means") as a union between one man and one woman."

In the next paragraph you say "I seriously do not understand how you can parse the very language you have quoted to mean anything other than that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman."

(underlines mine)

Did you never play "Simon says"? In this case "DOMA says" does not make it so, overall.

The word marriage is not "defined as a union between one man and one woman" in fact, those words are lifted out of context and are not what congress never said. Words taken out of context can make false statements, which is what they do in this case.

Yes, it does. Can you find find ANY support for your argument? Seriously, google "defense of marriage act defines marriage" and you'll find that EVERYONE agrees with me.

The word marriage "in any act of congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies" is defined as the union of one man and one woman: under those limited circumstances. Can't you see the difference?

Do you seriously think these are "limited circumstances?" These limited circumstances make up the majority federal law (the Constitution, executive orders, and case law interpreting statutes making up the rest).

You are speaking as if (1) the fact that congress used the words "union of one man and one woman" in some limited sense has any bearing at all on the constitutionality or lack thereof, of gay marriage.

You almost seem to be speaking as if (2) no law can be passed favoring gay marriage because (as you seem to claim) DOMA says marriage is between the opposite gendered always and forever in every place in the USA.

No, I do not.

As to your first point, DOMA has nothing to do with the constitutionality of gay marriage. I never said it does. What it DOES do is define what marriage means under federal law.

As to your second point, you have completely ignored what I have written. For example, I said "And, of course, subsequent legislation redefining marriage would overrule DOMA." In my last post, I said " Congress can pass a law tomorrow that defines marriage as a union of two men, two women, or three or more consenting adults. When that happens, DOMA will be superseded." How can you read my statements and come to the conclusion that "DOMA says marriage is between the opposite gendered always and forever?"

I think it is quite sad that you believe congress has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and you do see the limits which they set on this definition.

And I think it is quite sad that you are the only one--literally the only person--who believes DOMA does not define what marriage means for the purposes of federal law.

This is my third attempt to help you see that DOMA cannot establish the definition of marriage, except for certain limited legal circumstances enumerated above. I shall not make another one. I give up.

I don't know whether to cry or laugh.

[TrackerNeil]

I completely agree. Anytime you make a law, or start a program, you're doing so because you believe that it should be done, or in any case that it should be done more than it should not be done.

Thinking that something should be prevented or should be enacted is not necessary a moral conviction. The commonwealth of Pennsylvania outlaws U-turns in most circumstances, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who think U-turns are immoral. The folks who outlawed those turns probably just think they're dangerous. But I'm not going any further with the not-all-laws-are-morally-based argument, because I have proved my point repeatedly on this board, and if I haven't convinced you by now I never will.

[El-ahrairah]

Let me add one thing, by the way:

Regardless of what happens next, gay marriage is coming. It's coming to the US, the UK, Australia, and every other civilised country. And not 'civil unions' or any other nonsense, but marriage.

Why? Because as this judgment elegantly shows, there is not a single respectable, rational argument against it. Not one.

I definitely think that's true. Were I concerned with my reputation in history books, I would have had a rainbow flag flying from my window years ago. But maybe there's still hope - I could be like Senator Byrd and tearfully renounce my past associations with bigotry. :)

[Darzin]

You might ask yourself why you will be reviled in history books and the answer is because you support the denial of Homosexuals right to marry simply because you don’t like it. While being unable to come up with a single benefit to society that withholding marriage provides.