UK set for same-sex marriage battle...

[_Buffalo]

So you ignored the facts and let your inner bigot do the talking?

the facts support my pecking order, generally speaking....though i admit it is just my own unfounded speculation about the bacon scenario.

Doesn't seem to be the case.

[_subgenius]

Despite what you apparently thought was a clever pun, "relative" is not the right word. The word you are looking for is "relevant."

trust me, "clever" is not anything i would attempt to associate with a discussion involving you.
it is interesting how revealing it is when someone chooses to fixate on the grammar of a post, when the meaning is rather clear.

This is relevant as to whether the legal meaning of marriage is contingent upon bearing children. It is not, as shown by your failure to cite a single jurisdiction among the 51 in the United States where having children, or being able to have children, is a condition precedent to marriage.

the Supreme Court made a pretty good link when it wrote the decision for Skinner v. Oklahoma, a pretty darn good legal precedent for many subsequent decisions, especially based on that clear notion.
As for the states....perhaps you recall that blood testing was/is a "requirement" in many states in order to be licensed for marriage. These laws were (and are) intended to not only protect a spouse from exposure, but also to enable treatment in order to prevent passage to offspring. transmission through the population could be reduced or even eliminated - back in the 30s and 40s we saw these policies come about due to syphilis and rubella. the latter being especially dangerous to the development of a fetus, whereas not that common in adults.
So, what we see is that society, though not legislation procreation (absurd) it definitely recognizes it as an assumed by-product.
People always assume newlyweds will "start a family" - because it is the rule, not the exception.
We even reward it in the tax code, as a means to encourage the behavior. "Married" gets the highest standard deduction, and "children" total up quite nicely - all means to encourage the very concept spoken to in Skinner v Oklahoma. This is also a clear example of how the government, through legislation, subsidizes and rewards the behavior its citizens consider "virtuous". So, to claim that I am not imposed upon by same-sex marriage is a fallacy, i am being forced to subsidize it through the tax system - objection justified.
The fact is that marriage and procreation are inextricably linked in our culture and our legal subtext. Just because people get married and never have children is not sufficient cause to deny that fact, once again the exception is not the rule, and it is this rule that defines the virtue.

definitely what is not "relevant" is the idea that things "are" as only in how they "are" legislated ( i smell fascism).

What is going on between first cousins between 55 and 65 years of age that makes marriage suddenly okay is a judge making a finding of fact that at least one of the putative spouses cannot reproduce. Women age 65 and over are significantly past menopause, and therefore cannot conceive. Contrary to your endless unsupported assertions that marriage is about having children, here is a class of marriage that is legally valid specifically because the spouses cannot have children.

i see you have the typical handbook for responses.
it is still absurd...the law would simply be written as "unable to reproduce" first cousins may marry regardless of age.

[_Drifting]

If the 'social injustice' were to magically disappear how would the pecking order then look?

as i said, the lesbian parents would have a good argument for #2, but there are still a few issues to ascertain, such as the effects on gender identity and influence on relationship behavior. Gay parents would likely stay in same location....too many cards still stacked against them.
Ultimately, i speculate, that the more data becomes available the more we will discover the psychological inadequacies of the LGBT impact children and how overwhelming the benefits are (still are) to have opposite sex parents.

I get what you're saying. I get the 'accepted' pecking order. But....
I know of great opposite sex parents and I know of really bad ones.
I would speculate that good same sex parents would be better for the child than bad opposite sex parents.

[_Darth J]

Despite what you apparently thought was a clever pun, "relative" is not the right word. The word you are looking for is "relevant."

trust me, "clever" is not anything i would attempt to associate with a discussion involving you.
it is interesting how revealing it is when someone chooses to fixate on the grammar of a post, when the meaning is rather clear.

That's not grammar. That is substantive wording. The word "relative" has a very different meaning from "relevant."

This is relevant as to whether the legal meaning of marriage is contingent upon bearing children. It is not, as shown by your failure to cite a single jurisdiction among the 51 in the United States where having children, or being able to have children, is a condition precedent to marriage.

the Supreme Court made a pretty good link when it wrote the decision for Skinner v. Oklahoma, a pretty darn good legal precedent for many subsequent decisions, especially based on that clear notion.

The Supreme Court has no authority to define for the states what marriage is, neither from Article III of the Constitution nor from basic principles of federalism. Skinner v. Oklahoma does not mean what you mistakenly assert that it means, and I have already explained that in a couple of different threads.

As for the states....perhaps you recall that blood testing was/is a "requirement" in many states in order to be licensed for marriage. These laws were (and are) intended to not only protect a spouse from exposure, but also to enable treatment in order to prevent passage to offspring. transmission through the population could be reduced or even eliminated - back in the 30s and 40s we saw these policies come about due to syphilis and rubella. the latter being especially dangerous to the development of a fetus, whereas not that common in adults.
So, what we see is that society, though not legislation procreation (absurd) it definitely recognizes it as an assumed by-product.

Nobody disputes that having children is a by-product of marriage. That non-dispute has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage, either.

People always assume newlyweds will "start a family" - because it is the rule, not the exception.

And if they do not start a family, then their marriage is void. Right?

We even reward it in the tax code, as a means to encourage the behavior.

The taxation treatment of married persons applies regardless of whether they have children. Also, you do not have to be married to claim a child as a dependent.

"Married" gets the highest standard deduction, and "children" total up quite nicely - all means to encourage the very concept spoken to in Skinner v Oklahoma.

Subgenius, you don't understand case law, and you don't understand how much you don't understand it. Defining what the legal requirements of marriage are was not before the court in Skinner, and the federal judiciary does not have the authority to define that, anyway.

Skinner was about compulsory sterilization as a criminal penalty. It was a penalty applicable to criminals regardless of their marital status. There is not a single judge or lawyer in the United States who thinks that this single underlined sentence, in context, means that having children is part of the legal definition of marriage:

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.

The due process right to have children is not limited to married people, and the U.S. Supreme Court has relied on Skinner for that principle.

Esienstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). See also Skinner v. Oklahoma, [405 U.S. 438, 454] 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905).

This is also a clear example of how the government, through legislation, subsidizes and rewards the behavior its citizens consider "virtuous".

That is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples in doing so, given that there is nothing about what marriage as a legal relationship actually is that requires the parties to be of the opposite sex.

So, to claim that I am not imposed upon by same-sex marriage is a fallacy, i am being forced to subsidize it through the tax system - objection justified.

And I likewise am forced to subsidize the childless geriatric marriages of Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson, which confer no benefit on me or on society generally.

The fact is that marriage and procreation are inextricably linked in our culture and our legal subtext. Just because people get married and never have children is not sufficient cause to deny that fact, once again the exception is not the rule, and it is this rule that defines the virtue.

"Exception not the rule" does not pass the rational basis test, since childless marriages are given the same legal status as marriages that produce children.

definitely what is not "relevant" is the idea that things "are" as only in how they "are" legislated ( i smell fascism).

If you smell fascism, that's because you're an idiot. Things being only as how they are legislated is what law is. What you really mean is that you want your cherished religious beliefs and value judgments to be treated as if they are law. They are not.

What is going on between first cousins between 55 and 65 years of age that makes marriage suddenly okay is a judge making a finding of fact that at least one of the putative spouses cannot reproduce. Women age 65 and over are significantly past menopause, and therefore cannot conceive. Contrary to your endless unsupported assertions that marriage is about having children, here is a class of marriage that is legally valid specifically because the spouses cannot have children.

i see you have the typical handbook for responses.
it is still absurd...the law would simply be written as "unable to reproduce" first cousins may marry regardless of age.

That only means that there is an arbitrary age limit, which very well may be absurd if the legislature in Utah wishes to recognize marriages between first cousins who cannot reproduce. All you're doing is recognizing that there may be an equal protection problem with the age limits imposed if there is no rational basis for the different treatment of infertile first cousins at younger ages. But that's nonresponsive as to why, if reproduction is what the legal relationship of marriage is about, any marriage at all should be recognized specifically because the parties cannot reproduce.

[_subgenius]

That's not grammar. That is substantive wording. The word "relative" has a very different meaning from "relevant."

The Supreme Court has no authority to define for the states what marriage is, neither from Article III of the Constitution nor from basic principles of federalism. Skinner v. Oklahoma does not mean what you mistakenly assert that it means, and I have already explained that in a couple of different threads.

i have already entertained your rather feeble attempt to re-frame the argument, and i have never claimed that procreation was ever legislated in the manner by which you insist is necessary to support a ban on lgbt marriage.

And if they do not start a family, then their marriage is void. Right?

again, you parade the exception around as if it were the rule....personally i am thankful that common sense and rational thinking prevail, both of which you seem to stand in stark opposition.

The taxation treatment of married persons applies regardless of whether they have children. Also, you do not have to be married to claim a child as a dependent

but the maximum benefit is received by those who do "both"...which was the point.

...Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....

enuff said.

The issue is whether there is a rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples in doing so, given that there is nothing about what marriage as a legal relationship actually is that requires the parties to be of the opposite sex.

actually it is not "the" issue, but rather "an" issue....grammar nazi should know better.

And I likewise am forced to subsidize the childless geriatric marriages of Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson, which confer no benefit on me or on society generally.

then exercise your rights and protest it and get it changed...otherwise steep yourself in the hypocrisy of criticizing those who do likewise.

If you smell fascism, that's because you're an idiot. Things being only as how they are legislated is what law is. What you really mean is that you want your cherished religious beliefs and value judgments to be treated as if they are law. They are not.

actually "what i mean" is that a man who steals bread does not always deserve to go to jail.


typical fascism, telling me what i mean and what i do not mean.

[_sheryl]

because it does not support your preconceived notions on the subject?, duly noted.


Let us take a more sanitized approach that may be more appropriate for your delicate sensibilities.
The American Psychological Association(ApA) writes the following in support for the removing homosexuality from the list of disorders (which occurred in the 70s, an obvious by-product of the "me" generation):
"There is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning, although the social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress (Cochran, 2001; Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Meyer, 2003; Reiss, 1980"

I have no disagreement with this position. But be attentive to the conclusion at the end of this statement - "Acute distress"
Now, yes, this distress is caused by the society and is arguably unjust, immoral, not fair, etc...
But is that cause for putting children in that environment? Are you willing to argue that this current risk is acceptable to prove a political point? Is it appropriate to sacrifice the well-being of a child as a means to combat an alleged social injustice?
No, it is not...because to take that position is tantamount to using children as a shield between alleged social injustice and the LGBT.

So, currently we see that the LGBT, for whatever reason, is a less favorable condition (due to the increased risk) for the well-being of children.

The ApA article Lesbian & Gay Parenting - Children of Lesbian & Gay Parents, By Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD is no less biased than NARTH. A careful reading of this document reveals, aside from a considerable amount of ambiguity, a rather striking pattern. Charlotte will reference citations and studies regarding lesbian parenting and then draw a conclusion where she conveniently includes gay men. This reference is quite devoid of specific gay men parenting statistics, and even admits it, and where she does reference a study it is in a casual, shallow manner, often just stating that the study described gay parent in "positive terms".......though she consistently piggy-backs a gay parent endorsement on the back of lesbian parenting findings. Closer inspection of the references confirms my earlier, and current assertions.

Now the APA (capital P) or American Psychiatric Association wrote:
"a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, wrote (in reference to the APA referenced studies) in an affidavit in last year's Ontario Superior Court gay marriage case, "not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research."

So, in conclusion we can research all the data, criticize the research methods, and still come to the same conclusions as i have asserted.
The bottom line is that the well-being of the child is the most important aspect of the discussion, yet we see the LGBT community defy the data, the circumstances, and the context of current society by insisting that children are at no worse a risk with them than with anyone else. Yet because of the current climate in our society it is blatantly obvious that this is just a self-centered claim, as usual, by the LGBT community and they are willing to put children in potentially risky situations to prove their point. The idea that the LGBT community can simultaneously alleviate the alleged social injustice they suffer and use children as a means to combat alleged prejudicial treatment is a glaring sign of their misguided selfish behavior having no bounds. If nothing else the well-being of a child far outweighs the risk of being in an environment of "acute distress" or other alleged social pressures.
This is not a call to advocate any alleged social injustices that may or may not be imposed on the LGBT community, but rather a call to recognize that if these social injustices do exist then placing children on the front line is not in their best interest for "well-being".

Oh wow. I read this and thought, probably 90% of our families suffer from acute distress and thus by this argument are not suitable environments for children. To single out acute distress caused by the infliction of prejudice on gay couples and ignore acute distress caused by depression, mental illness, the loss of employment, the death of a child or parent in the family etc, is incomprehensible in today's society.

If I might add, when Biblical marriage is held up as the model for marriage, I think those who are making such claims may not really understand what they are saying.

For anyone holding up Biblical marriage as their standard, there is a diagram floating around the internet describing all marriage arrangements or possibilities that are presented to us in the Bible that can be used as their standard.

Here is a link to it:

My favorite is that the victim of a rape must marry their rapist. God commands such according to scripture!

The gist is, the kind of marriage that is being held up as biblical marriage is not illustrated nor commanded in the Bible.

The closest we have in the Bible to what is being touted as a biblical marriage is a tyrannical man who only has one wife and views that wife as property. We have evolved past the nomadic and uncivilized state that required heavy laws and sanctions regarding marriage to protect the citizens. We are now able to love someone of the same sex and enter into a healthy loving relationship with them that will benefit all of society. Gee we are now able to do something that was not possible to do in Biblical times - to love a spouse as an equal, whether of the same gender or not!

Years ago, a loving, equal status marriage was not possible whether or not the couple was of the same or different genders. And the only homosexuality practiced in Biblical times was brutal, harmful. It was actually a crime - a rape. Thus is God's wisdom we needed laws to protect citizens against homosexuality, sort of the same way we needed laws to protect against loss of wife or children as they were considered assets just like a house or cattle. But this my friends is no longer the case.

Man (and woman) and society has evolved, where we no longer need the same regulations and protections that were needed in biblical times. We need different ones!

And so please, all literal Bible thumpers, let Christ work to evolve humanity! Quit playing the anti-Christ working to keep us enslaved to a past that no longer exists, to a dead God! God is living and right here and now can provide the guidance that we need today.

This is why we are told to look to the Spirit behind the Law, to the Universal Law of Love that is behind a law in the physical, which itself will change as we evolve and become increasingly able to love. To require a living, evolving humanity to hold to standards of the past, to the literal law of the past, is indeed death.

for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Shalom!

Sheryl

[Guest]

That's not grammar. That is substantive wording. The word "relative" has a very different meaning from "relevant."

Again, Subgenius, a substantive choice of words is not "grammar."

The Supreme Court has no authority to define for the states what marriage is, neither from Article III of the Constitution nor from basic principles of federalism. Skinner v. Oklahoma does not mean what you mistakenly assert that it means, and I have already explained that in a couple of different threads.

i have already entertained your rather feeble attempt to re-frame the argument, and i have never claimed that procreation was ever legislated in the manner by which you insist is necessary to support a ban on lgbt marriage.

Subgenius, find me a case that interprets Skinner v. Oklahoma as substantively defining what marriage is.

And if they do not start a family, then their marriage is void. Right?

again, you parade the exception around as if it were the rule....personally i am thankful that common sense and rational thinking prevail, both of which you seem to stand in stark opposition.

Does the failure to have children void a marriage? Yes or no?

The taxation treatment of married persons applies regardless of whether they have children. Also, you do not have to be married to claim a child as a dependent

but the maximum benefit is received by those who do "both"...which was the point.

But the marriage benefit applies to people who do not have children, which is the point.

...Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....

enuff said.

Subgenius, find me a case that interprets Skinner v. Oklahoma as substantively defining what marriage is.

The issue is whether there is a rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples in doing so, given that there is nothing about what marriage as a legal relationship actually is that requires the parties to be of the opposite sex.

actually it is not "the" issue, but rather "an" issue....grammar nazi should know better.

No, that is the issue, period, full stop. That is what equal protection means. That is the basis on which the 9th Circuit upheld Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

And I likewise am forced to subsidize the childless geriatric marriages of Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson, which confer no benefit on me or on society generally.

then exercise your rights and protest it and get it changed...otherwise steep yourself in the hypocrisy of criticizing those who do likewise.

Would anyone else on the board like to volunteer his or her opinion on whether the underlined statement makes any sense?

Tell you what, Subgenius: would you be in favor of a public referendum that said any marriages that fail to produce children within a given period of time are void?

If you smell fascism, that's because you're an idiot. Things being only as how they are legislated is what law is. What you really mean is that you want your cherished religious beliefs and value judgments to be treated as if they are law. They are not.

actually "what i mean" is that a man who steals bread does not always deserve to go to jail.

typical fascism, telling me what i mean and what i do not mean.

Subgenius, as consistently and repeatedly demonstrated in your posts, neither I nor anyone else is infringing on your right to make a fool of yourself.

And as sentimental as your allusion to Jean Valjean is, that depends on whether that man has a valid defense. The fact that you would even make that statement reaffirms that you are simply a religious zealot who has an "I-read-Wikipedia" understanding of law, while in reality being opposed to the rule of law. You want your cherished religious beliefs and value judgments to be treated as if they are law.

And in the story, Jean Valjean never denied he was guilty of a crime, and he never argued that what he did was moral. He only took issue for being sent to prison for 19 years for something as petty as stealing a loaf of bread. However, if he had been a real person to whom the U.S. Constitution applied, he would have had an 8th Amendment challenge to his sentence: it was grossly disproportionate to the crime, and therefore cruel and unusual.

[_subgenius]

I get what you're saying. I get the 'accepted' pecking order. But....
I know of great opposite sex parents and I know of really bad ones.
I would speculate that good same sex parents would be better for the child than bad opposite sex parents.

anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I was clear when I stated "all else equal".
I am sure that one day the same could be said of same sex parents....but....among the "good" parents there is but one best.....the data supports that among the "good" married biological parents are the best, and therefore the basis for that virtue.

and for the record, good is better than bad...are you promoting that we all strive and support mediocrity? that we take a position of "this will do"?

[_Drifting]

I get what you're saying. I get the 'accepted' pecking order. But....
I know of great opposite sex parents and I know of really bad ones.
I would speculate that good same sex parents would be better for the child than bad opposite sex parents.

anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I was clear when I stated "all else equal".
I am sure that one day the same could be said of same sex parents....but....among the "good" parents there is but one best.....the data supports that among the "good" married biological parents are the best, and therefore the basis for that virtue.

and for the record, good is better than bad...are you promoting that we all strive and support mediocrity? that we take a position of "this will do"?

No, not at all.
I'm just thinking in a realistic rather than utopian way. Same sex marriage and parenting is here and it is here to stay wether one likes it or not. I am happy to accept that best is best, and that best is opposite sex committed parents. However I accept that good, whilst not best, is better than bad. More should be done to eradicate bad opposite sex parenting and the utilisation of same sex parents is, in my opinion, a useful part of the solution.

I assume that you aren't advocating that we should tolerate bad opposite sex parenting, to the long term detriment of the child, just to avoid the opportunity for same sex parents to bring up children?

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, find me a case that interprets Skinner v. Oklahoma as substantively defining what marriage is.

i now realize that you consider the 14th amendment as just cause for restructuring marriage via legislation (there is that smell again).

oh, and by the way,
here is the case as requested:

Baker v Nelson, 1971 (Minnesota supreme court) - Minnesota is a state, correct?
where we read:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation."
....
"We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Affirmed."

You really made that too easy
i like how you posture yourself as some sort of legal eagle, but you are just a dodo like the rest of us.
even the simplest of inspections reveal that this Skinner version of marriage was fundamental to subsequent cases like Loving v Virginia. They stood on the foundation of marriage as it was being defined in Skinner. While Loving proved that all state restrictions were not beyond the reach of the 14th, it did not indicate that all state restrictions were, or even that they should be.

In commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

the real issue is that you are unable to discern this simple notion.

Does the failure to have children void a marriage? Yes or no?

oooooh...i just love "ultimatum" questions.
both of your questions here are absurd and reflect nothing of the position i have been taking on this thread.

But the marriage benefit applies to people who do not have children, which is the point.

maybe you would prefer having the conversation by yourself, you are already making a great effort to do so.

Subgenius, find me a case that interprets Skinner v. Oklahoma as substantively defining what marriage is.

done to the point of your embarrassment.

No, that is the issue, period, full stop. That is what equal protection means. That is the basis on which the 9th Circuit upheld Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Just because you "ant" it to be the issue, does not make it so.....
and yet Baker v Nelson looms over you.
you know what i remember about the the "sith"?, his defeat.

Would anyone else on the board like to volunteer his or her opinion on whether the underlined statement makes any sense?

why? do you need their help?
let me dumb it down for you....just because you are forced to subsidize Oaks does not mean that i should to be forced to subsidize LGBT marriages.
Just because you do not protest your situation does not mean i can not protest mine.

Tell you what, Subgenius: would you be in favor of a public referendum that said any marriages that fail to produce children within a given period of time are void?

no, why would i?
you really are deeply entrenched my friend.

Subgenius, as consistently and repeatedly demonstrated in your posts, neither I nor anyone else is infringing on your right to make a fool of yourself.

a freedom you obviously take full advantage for yourself.

And as sentimental as your allusion to Jean Valjean is,.....

my only sentiment is that you thinking you are smart is far above where you actually are.
Your rather clumsy insistence that somehow the 14th applies to your argument is amusing, but it is just mostly unfounded. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.

oh by the way....did i mention Baker v Nelson?