Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 09:49:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure...  (Read 2980 times)
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,186


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

« on: September 17, 2014, 12:38:59 PM »

If the law means anything, the editorial letter has legal gravitas, even if people don't like the implications.

While it is the same argument made in Loving v. Virginia, the situation is obviously not the same. In Loving v. Virginia, the state was essentially arguing that a person's sun tan fundamentally changes the nature of a marriage relationship. It was racist and stupid.

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

People need to get their heads straight, if they want to hurdle the social injustice inherent to government policies that discriminate against married and unmarried people. This issue isn't about gay or straight.

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,186


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2014, 12:58:47 PM »

Gay marriage presents a different situation, in which the editorial letter has merit. If people don't like it, perhaps they should stop being dumb sh*ts, who beg for regulation rather than freedom. The problems faced by homosexuals in the United States are not specific to homosexuals, nor do they have anything to do with sexual orientation. An unmarried heterosexual couple faces the same discrimination.

LOL what?

He thinks that the real victims of marriage laws in the U.S. are unmarried couples because they aren't eligible to receive the same state benefits that married couples receive. This is an argument against gay marriage because reasons.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,186


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2014, 02:24:32 PM »

Lol, this again? The status of being unmarried isn't in and of itself the type of immutable characteristic that would ever qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis. You're doing equal protection wrong.

You think marriage is an immutable characteristic? That's rich.

If choosing to marry someone of the same sex is an immutable characteristic, choosing not to marry someone of the opposite sex is equally immutable.

Um, no, I obviously don't think marriage is an immutable characteristic. My point was that marital status is not an immutable characteristic, but sexual orientation is.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,186


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2014, 02:53:15 PM »


If marriage is not an immutable characteristic, the state is free to discriminate, as they do in other forms of contractual obligation between parties. Whether he knows it or not, he's searching for an immutable characteristic upon which the government has infringed. In Loving v. Virginia, the state had clearly infringed upon man-woman relationships by exploiting race.

The ongoing gay marriage battle is based upon the idea that it has nothing to do with man-woman relations. It's obviously true. We have a bunch of different options. Expand the sickness by building gay marriage contract law and legal precedent. Expand the sickness by subjecting homosexuals to heterosexual relationship and contract law. Undermine the system of discrimination we have created, by repealing the foolhardy socioeconomic policy that brought about its existence.

We should? a) Spread the disease b) Treat the symptoms c) Eradicate the disease. Apparently, this is a trick question for most Americans, which is why our species continues to suffer needlessly.

In Loving v. Virginia the court held that state discrimination on the basis of race in the realm of marriage laws constituted an equal protection violation. The argument for gay marriage is that state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also unconstitutional because sexual orientation, like race, is an immutable characteristic that should be subject to some form of heightened scrutiny.

There are pros and cons to getting married. The state and federal governments confer many benefits on married couples, but also probably some costs such as the so-called "marriage tax." Whether the current regime of tax and welfare regulations related to marriage is sensible is unrelated to the gay marriage question. No one is going to go down the rabbit hole of debating the pros and cons of our federal income tax system in this thread, because this thread is about same-sex marriage.
You're conflating two different questions:
1. Should the government recognize unions between two individuals and use that status as the basis for qualification for various government benefits?
2. If the government does grant such recognition, is it constitutional to grant recognition to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples.
I get that you think the regime of civil marriage should be abolished entirely. But do you really not see that someone's answer to question 1 could be "no, all marriage laws should be repealed" while their answer to question 2 could be "no, because discrimination on the basis of such immutable characteristics is bad?"

I take you to mean that the "sickness/ disease" is the social inequality created by what you view as the oppressive institution of marriage. Your argument against gay marriage is then that expanding marriage to gay people will cause more people to suffer under the oppressive institution of marriage.  The problem with that argument of course is that you could replace "gay people" with "black people" and the result would be the same. By your reasoning, if minorities were prohibited from getting married, it would be a net positive for society because fewer people would suffer under the oppressive institution of marriage.   
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 13 queries.