the Conservative case for gay marriage

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BigWill, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts


     
  2. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts


     
  3. hornyhoosier

    hornyhoosier 500+ Posts


     
  4. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts


     
  5. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts


     
  6. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    There must be a legal definition of what 'marriage' is. No matter how marriage is defined, it will no doubt leave out some 'relationships' and include others. Traditionally US laws have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Of course there have been and are exceptions to this, e g past allowing of polygamy in some states, and current gay marriage in some states (one individual in relationship with one other individual).
    The reason I state the obvious above, is that the question has been raised with regards to equal protection. I actually, think there are 2 ways to look at equal protection where the real controversy is.

    1) ANY single man can marry ANY single lady. (of age of course and with some stipulations.) This means that Joe Gay can marry Sally Lesbian, just as soon as Bob Straight can marry Judy Straight. The law is equal with regards to them all. One man, and one woman. It matters not which gender each is attracted to, or if they even love each other. The law applies equally.

    2) Joe Gay can't marry Bob Gay, even though Joe and Bob love each other. Bob Straight can marry Judy Straight, whom he loves. This is obviously NOT equal protection under the law, because Joe Gay can't marry whom he loves, but Bob Straight can. This is NOT equal.


    These seem to be the two arguments that I hear with regards to gay marriage and equal protection under the law.

    I tend to side with 1) based on history of law, and that is is applied equally, if NOT fairly. I do not believe there is a legal requirement for the law to be fair, just equally applied.
    Now, I also understand that 2) is more 'FAIR' under the law. I do not and can not make a legal argument that it is not. I just don't know that marriage and it's definition requires any type of legal 'fairness,' just legal 'equal application'.

    This is why I continue to almost be of 2 minds on the matter.
     
  7. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts

    So equally applying an unfair law means we should just keep applying it? That makes zero sense.

    It's telling that NO ONE wants to make an argument about why we need the unfair law to begin with. All the arguments you guys are making are that even if it is unfair, it's "equally" unfair to all, so there's no issue.

    Can you guys think of any other "equally" unfair laws that we have? Should we accept "equally" unfair laws just because they are applied to everyone? Why or why not?
     
  8. abqhornfan

    abqhornfan 100+ Posts

    In reply to:


     
  9. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    JohnnyM,
    I tried to honestly answer your question. I believe that it meets legal muster, because it is equally applied. I thought that was your problem. You thought/think there is a legal argument that this is not equal protection under the law. I believe it is.

    Also, as a Christian, I know that marriage is a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Why? Because God, who is greater than any earthly government, and who created humanity, and sexuality has stated so. As a Christian, I want, to some extent, the laws of my community to reflect Truth, and this is the Truth about marriage.
    Many non Christians would disagree, and in our country are free to disagree. But the fact remains, if in the eyes of the law the law is equal, then you have no recourse to change what the majority have willed. The majority voted for a law, which I believe is equal. Therefore, even if, 'unfair' there is no legal recourse to over turn the will of the people.
    If the people voted FOR gay marriage in CA, then gay marriage is what you would have. I wouldn't protest that. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't challenge it legally either.
     
  10. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts


     
  11. alden

    alden 1,000+ Posts


     
  12. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest

    JohnnyM:

     
  13. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  14. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    I have no problem with a liberty argument. I have no problem with two people publicly committing to each other personally or in front of their God. In fact I support that and think we should protect everyone's right to do that.

    What I have a problem with is as taxpayer, officially recognizing gay marriage as a state supported institution. However, I do believe in fairness and see no compelling reason to give traditional heterosexual marriages a special recognition in front of the law. IMO, we should get rid of state recognition of all marriage. Hell if business partners, platonic friends, brothers, sisters, brothers and sisters wish to engage in special power of attorneys to protect assets (which they currently aren't) they should be able to do so. Just get rid of marriage classifications.
     
  15. hornyhoosier

    hornyhoosier 500+ Posts


     
  16. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    As a heterosexually married moderate, I understand the constitutional arguments against gay marriage, particularly Coel's general will vs. depriving rights issues.

    But if we are a just and honest society, I can't believe that we'd actually prefer a society that tolerates human discrimination on a level like this. The ones fighting for interracial marriages in the 19th century were just seen as overly-progressive (and probably persecuted for this belief). However, they didn't have a constitutional leg to stand on. We know today that this was wrong. So my guess is that in the 22nd century, the people who tirelessly fought for a gay's right to marry will be seen in a similar fashion.
     
  17. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    JohnnyM,
    I guess if a gay man or woman got married to an opposite sex person for legal benefits that they wouldn't be going in and out of them. They would just stick with one, and never pay for divorce costs, because it is a 'sham' marriage in the first place.
    I am not advocating such, and I don't think either is a good situation. Which is why I have openly wrestled on here with the idea of civil unions, which I am generally in favour of. My understanding of CA law, is that all the priviledges and legal protections of civil marriages exist in CA domestic civil partnerships. I could be wrong on that, but that was my understanding.
    NAIU, might have more insight on that especially when it comes to a civil union v. marriage with one person not being a US citizen.
    Of course the issue is what is marriage? Civilly? Religiously? Which is why, as a Christian, what I see as marriage is NOT determined by how the government defines marriage. If gay marriage were to become legal, I don't know that it would drastically change my life or not. Which is why I see myself, while religious conservative, pretty moderate on this issue.
    I know I am rambling, but in general I think I am stating to either be for civil unions, or just for the State to get out of the 'marriage' business altogether. OR just have 'civil unions' for heteros or homos, and leave 'marriage' up to churches, mosques, synagogues etc.
     
  18. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts

    Coel - All of those laws you mentioned have some sort of basis for why the government needs the law. Call it general welfare or whatever you want, but they aren't just laws for the sake of being laws. And I'm sure that many would say this isn't law for the sake of being law - but no one, including yourself, wants to actually MAKE that case. You just want it presumed that there is a rational need for the law without ever presenting that need.

    Now you're right, I may not agree with the basis the government uses on everything, but NO ONE on this thread is even offering any kind of basis for why we NEED to exclude gay people from getting married. Laph says it's been done before and ignored, so he won't do it again...but he says that every time. Please, someone, make the argument. I'm not saying that just to say it, I want to hear the argument for why we need this. I'm all for necessary laws.

    So again, make the argument for why we need to exclude gay people from this set of rights. What harm will be done by allowing gay people to marry, and is excluding gay marriages the best way to avoid that harm?

    Honestly, I'm willing to be convinced. If you can convince me that allowing gay marriage will somehow lead us on the path to destruction or will have some other terrible societal affect, I'm more than happy to oppose it. Until someone can show what harm will be done though, I cannot fathom why the law is necessary.
     
  19. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts


     
  20. abqhornfan

    abqhornfan 100+ Posts


     
  21. BigWill

    BigWill 2,500+ Posts


     
  22. NBMisha

    NBMisha 500+ Posts

    Johnny
    I support gay marriage rights via the fairness and non discrimination perspective. Having said that, given your pleas for a societal reason for discrimination, and having none offered, I suppose we might try to name them anyway.

    What is typically offered is that allowing gay marriage will have a detrimental impact on society via appearing to grant license to immoral behavior in general, and that there will be a societal response toward greater immoral behavior in general, and this directional shift is bad for society.
    The shift might be manifested in a hit on the success of conventional marriage, increased crime, disease, one can imagine the list.

    Now, if this were true, would that be sufficient case?

    How this chain of events can be shown to be likely, well, is something I haven't yet seen.

    As an aside, we also have the slippery slope argument applied, that this would necessarily allow polygamy and bestiality (love that word). But, socieital reasons are more obviously available for these discriminations. (Oddly, in the US polygamy is now the dominant mode, so long as it is serial polygamy).

    My apologies to discrimators out there for implying any of the above is your view. It could be fun ascribing absurd views to the opposition. Wait, isn't that the rule here?


    [​IMG]
     
  23. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  24. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts


     
  25. alden

    alden 1,000+ Posts


     
  26. We'reTexas

    We'reTexas 25+ Posts


     
  27. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest

    JohnnyM:

     
  28. We'reTexas

    We'reTexas 25+ Posts


     
  29. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     
  30. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest


     

Share This Page