Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 4)

Well, in some ways I'm just the messenger.

I believe in states rights in this issue.  If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, it's fine with me.

But if it ever gets to the Supreme Court, then proponents of gay marriage are going to have to overcome the argument I laid out.  Except at that point, the people making the argument are going to be pros, and not just a photographer on a triathlon site.

If proponents of gay marriage want the SCOTUS to recognize gay marriage as a right protected under the 14th ammendment, then they have to get past this argument.  And I don't see anyone addressing it out there in the think tank world.  Maybe it's happening, but if so it hasn't trickled down to the secondary sources that we pedestrians read.

Love me or hate me, this is the problem that your facing. 

Well, I'd say that I think about this on a personal level and on a macro level.

On a personal level, well I've lived connected to the gay community for my entire adult life.  I have plenty of gay friends with children.  For the most part, their struggles are the same as my struggles regarding parenthood.

But, I've come to be concerned about the children who are now coming of age.  I base this on first hand experience as a friend.  I've come to believe that ideally a child ought to be raised in a home with a mother and a father, and that it may not be the best idea to consciously construct a system in which either the mother or the father is seen as optional. 

So on a personal level, I see all of the nuances involved.  On a macro level I have a responsibility to think this through and be open to the possibility of coming to a conclusion that may in fact be contrary to my personal opinion.

So, I haven't decided yet. 

Hm. Well, I think her point is actually that if Hollis herself wanted to be a stay home mom, which she would love and would be her decision, that'd be pretty difficult for her -- even more so than it is for you -- because she doesn't have the option of her spouse paying for her health care. Among other things. While it is indeed hard to have a one income family, at least you can offer those you support health care.

I suppose carrying papers around isn't heavy per se, but it is pretty freaking insulting that she has to and you don't.

I think the Hitler reference came in because the whole holocaust started with little things like "Jews can't own pets", etc etc -- little, tiny things that didn't have a big impact to people personally and were only minorly inconvient to those that they did impact, but before you know it, you live in a society that is made up of a government sanctioned "us" and "them". And we can all see how well that worked out in Germany circa 1937. So, I don't think she's saying you're Hitler, but I don't think that its out of bounds to suggest that one when taking rights away from people, its worthwhile to see how that has affected other societies.

And seriously? Tell Kathryn to stop doing stuff that might compel a situation where Hollis would have to testify for her? Not the point! The point is, she'd have to, you wouldn't.

Well, the terms matter.  There are plenty of ways to have sex.  There is only one way to perform the conjugal act.

I believe that as regards marriage the question of whethr sex or love is more important is the wrong question.  The question ought to be if I believe that marriage is the total self donation of persons, or do I believe it is a contract.

But it will take a lot more writing to fully explain myself. 

Chris, I know that what I wrote in these posts sounds dry and clinical.  I know that. 

I only put it out there, because I believe that's what you face if you want the SCOTUS to recognize gay marriage as a right. The argument is going to get dry and clinical.  And it needs to be if the argument is to remain non-religious and non-ideological.

I'm happy to talk about marriage in poetic terms, but maybe that would be better on another thread. 

And as far as my tolerance.  I try to keep my views on these values matters aimed at the goal of keeping our society from moving into a totalitarian one.

It may seem counter intuitive that someone who opposes gay marriage is concerned about the society becoming totalitarian.  But my opposition is not based on any notion of sin, but on the underlying philosophy that is arguing for and expansion of licence, rather than an expantion of freedom. 

 I believe that a society that is concerned about licence, is at great risk of becoming totalitarian.

The 3/5ths compromise?  

I disagree with this being a state issue.  Art IV of the constitution gives full faith and credit to contracts (read marriages) proformed in other states.  Therefore, if Oregon leagalized same sex marriages, all one would need to do is take a long weekend there to get full marriage benefits (reguardless of where they currently reside).  Because of this, it seems like much more of a national issue to me. 

I'd jump in here, but I think you basically said it perfectly.

That's a good point.

I think this may be one way that this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.  For example, can the people of Oregon force the people of Wisconsin to adopt certain marriage laws.

It already has, the Dred Scott decision, 1857.  Granted its not of exactly the same subject matter, but it has upheld Art IV to the letter of the (constitutional) law.  This is one of the major contributors to the civil war in that there were no more slave states/free states.  This forced the anti slavery croud to play a national hand instead of just state politics.

I never likened YOU to Hitler, I simply said that Hilter started out restricting the rights of certain human beings, and slowly, over time, many Germans began believing that jews (and catholics and gays and gypsies and people with disabilities) were less than human. (and if you really think pet ownership is akin to marriage I pity your wife)

Carrying around the piece of paper is not a big deal. But you don't have to. So why should I?

We can and will leave the state for which we work since the state does not treat us the same way as you and your wife. I would LOVE to saty home like your wife. We would make less money, both due to my lack of income, and due to the fact that we would have to pay OUT OF POCKET for health insurance for me, you may pay a lot in co-premium etc, but I would have to pay the entire premium myself.

Of course its silly to suggest I will have to be in court and testify- but actually, it's not silly. It's one teensy part of a really big, discrimnating, issue, and I bring it up only as an example of the ways that the state dishonors my commitment to my spouse.

And as far as the comment I made about the pathology lab or the library at UW-Wisconsin, YOUR state university and hospital, I was just trying to say that there are obviously some contributions we make to your life (indirectly) or to your children's life (if they major in education, they will definitely meet me ) and if this state doesn;t treat us as they do you, we will leave, and I think (without sounding cocky, its mostly about Kathryn, actually) we will be missed if we are gone.

Red herring as it relates to same sex marraige (as a point of order, there is no ban on gay marrying.  They can get married, just not to someone of the same sex.....).  Imagine that Arkansas has a law that people can get married if they're younger than 18 only if both parties' parents consent.  California only requires one party's parent to consent (this is hypothetical but the laws do differ among states).  Is the California marraige valid in Arkansas?  Yup.

In other words, the "fact" of homosexuality does not suddenly force one state to "adopt" the laws of another state, because they already do, this is held Constitutional and it does not make it a federal issue (nor is abortion a federal issue).  But the fact of homosexuality is such a hot button for some, they can't see past the fact that states already recognize the validity of other states' marriages, even if it differs from their own laws.

And it is not only federal issues that can get Supreme Court attention.  There are other modes of jurisdiction.

That's a good one. I also remembered that women didn't have the right to vote at one time. So yes, this society did formerly marginalize large portions of it's citizenry (although blacks weren't at that time considered citizens).

All I can say is that I would hope that by now, we would have learned the lesson that lessening the rights of people just because of the color of the skin or their sex, or the people they were attracted to was actually a bad thing. I guess as a whole we haven't. It makes me sad.

You have sort of pushed me to split hairs by taking my post totally out of context.  If you look at what I said, it had to do with change of power as a result of a democratic process.  As americans, we pretty much have this process on a regular basis without ever having to worry about extremists behaviors disrupting our day-to-day lives after the election, whatever the outcome.  Your point did not contradict that statement.  Furthermore, acts of terrorism in this country, although large scale in recent years, are extremely rare.  How many acts of terrorism did you hear about in the U.S. in 2006? 2005? 2004?, etc.  On the other hand, how many have there been in Iraq last month?

Thanks counselor.  I was hoping you'd jump in.  

What if the case is made that married heterosexual couples ought to be seen as a protected class?   

If i recall my distant Con Law I learnings.......To have an equal protection claim, you have to assert that similarly situated persons are treated differently and denied some fundamental right based upon a certain characteristic.  Historically these were intrinsic characteristics - sex, color, etc.  It also extends to those characteristics that some could probably argue are choices while others would say they are also intrinsic - religion, sexual preference, obesity.  

The first problem would be the classification of a completely voluntary status as a protected category.  That's like saying speeders should be in a protected category.  It's a non sequitur.  Married couples are treated differently under the law.   Look at the marriage tax   Only has to be a reasonable basis to do so.

Second problem is where is the argument that married heterosexual couples are denied any rights?  I know it is claimed that same sex marriage somehow cheapens the sanctity of marriage, but no way you'll win that one in court.  Recognizing same sex marriage has no effect on a heterosexual couple's marriage -- good or bad --  that I can see.

Great points, Chris.  That's good stuff to chew on.

Regarding the cross state marriage laws, what would be the outcome today if, for example, Oregon legalized polygamy and gave it the same status as marriage. Then these folks moved to Pennsylvania.  Would Pennsylvania be compelled to recognize their polygamist union as a marriage?

For starters? The right to get married springs to mind ...

Gosh darn slippery slope!  You know, Don, that's a good question.  We all know Penn would not recognize it, the question is how it would get around the law.

On a related note, the full faith and credit clause is Constitutional and doesn't address marriage per se, it's only one aspect.  Under your theory, could Pennsylvania pass a law stating it did not recognize Oregonian court judgments, the same way it might pass a law saying it doesn't recognize Oregonian polygamist marriages?

Yeah, it's avoiding the question, answering one with another one,.... I know