Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Black Law Students => Topic started by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 09:10:53 AM

Title: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 09:10:53 AM
Opinion just released (http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.recent):

MADSEN, J. - The trial courts in these consolidated cases held that
the provisions of Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that
prohibit same-sex marriages are facially unconstitutional under the
privileges and immunities and due process clauses of the Washington State
Constitution.  King County and the State of Washington have appealed.  The
plaintiffs-respondents, gay and lesbian couples, renew their constitutional
arguments made to the trial courts, including a claim that DOMA violates
the Equal Rights Amendment.
     
The two cases before us require us to decide whether the legislature
has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex
couples.  The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to
answer "yes," and we therefore reverse the trial courts.
     
In reaching this conclusion, we have engaged in an exhaustive
constitutional inquiry and have deferred to the legislative branch as
required by our tri-partite form of government.  Our decision accords with
the substantial weight of authority from courts considering similar
constitutional claims.  We see no reason, however, why the legislature or
the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from
extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington.
It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the
constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an
independent determination of what we believe the law should be.  United
States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens talked about the court's
role when he described several noteworthy opinions he had written or joined
while "convinced that the law compelled a result that {he} would have
opposed if {he} were a legislator."  John Paul Stevens, United States
Supreme Court Justice, Judicial Predilections, Address to the Clark County
Bar Association, Las Vegas, Nev. 2 (Aug. 18, 2005).  As Justice Stevens
explained, a judge's understanding of the law is a separate and distinct
matter from his or her personal views about sound policy.  Id. at 17.
     
A judge's role when deciding a case, including the present one, is to
measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases that have
applied the constitution.  Personal views must not interfere with the
judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator.
This, after all, is one of the three legs supporting the rule of law.
Here, the solid body of constitutional law disfavors the conclusion that
there is a right to marry a person of the same sex.  It may be a measure of
this fact that Justice Fairhurst's dissent is replete with citation to
dissenting and concurring opinions, and that, in the end, it cites very
little case law that, without being overstated, supports its conclusions.
Perhaps because of the nature of the issue in this case and the strong
feelings it brings to the front, some members of the court have
uncharacteristically been led to depart significantly from the court's
limited role when deciding constitutional challenges.  For example, Justice
Fairhurst's dissent declines to apply settled principles for reviewing the
legislature's acts and instead decides for itself what the public policy of
this state should be.  Justice Bridge's dissent claims that gay marriage
will ultimately be on the books and that this court will be criticized for
having failed to overturn DOMA.  But, while same-sex marriage may be the
law at a future time, it will be because the people declare it to be, not
because five members of this court have dictated it.1  Justice J.M.
Johnson's concurrence, like Justice Fairhurst's dissent, also ignores the
proper standards for reviewing legislation.  And readers unfamiliar with
appellate court review may not realize the extent to which this concurrence
departs from customary procedures because, among other things, it merely
repeats the result and much of the reasoning of the court's decision on
most issues, thus adding unnecessarily to the length of the opinions.
     
In brief, unless a law is a grant of positive favoritism to a minority
class, we apply the same constitutional analysis under the state
constitution's privileges and immunities clause that is applied under the
federal constitution's equal protection clause.  DOMA does not grant a
privilege or immunity to a favored minority class, and we accordingly apply
the federal analysis.  The plaintiffs have not established that they are
members of a suspect class or that they have a fundamental right to
marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex.
Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of
review to the legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are
entitled to civil marriage in this state.  Under this standard, DOMA is
constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential
to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the
children's biological parents.  Allowing same-sex couples to marry does
not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.2  Accordingly,
there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause.
     
There also is no violation of the state due process clause.  DOMA
bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests --
procreation and child-rearing.  Nor do we find DOMA invalid as a violation
of privacy interests protected by article I, section 7 of the Washington
State Constitution.  The people of Washington have not had in the past nor,
at this time, are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to
marry a person of the same sex.
     
Finally, DOMA does not violate the state constitution's equal rights
amendment because that provision prohibits laws that render benefits to or
restrict or deny rights of one sex.  DOMA treats both sexes the same;
neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: redemption on July 26, 2006, 09:31:35 AM
Hahaha. I love it when bigotry is dressed in its sunday best.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 09:47:19 AM
rational basis review--limiting marriage to opposite sex couples furthers procreation--essential to the survival of the human race. sounds like something else I read recently on my friend's facebook page...if we allow same-sex couples to marry then it will mark the end of civilization as we know it. period.

"If our buildings, our highways, and our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States of America would be destroyed and all hope for civilization would be as impossible for a Negroid America as would be redemption and restoration of the Whiteman's blood which had been mixed with that of the Negro."
(Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi in 1947)
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: A. on July 26, 2006, 09:49:18 AM
Lacoste, I think you should create a thread entitled "Lacoste's News Articles" and post all of them in there.  Don't worry; we'll read it ;).
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: redemption on July 26, 2006, 09:53:06 AM
rational basis review--limiting marriage to opposite sex couples furthers procreation--essential to the survival of the human race. sounds like something else I read recently on my friend's facebook page...if we allow same-sex couples to marry then it will mark the end of civilization as we know it. period.

"If our buildings, our highways, and our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States of America would be destroyed and all hope for civilization would be as impossible for a Negroid America as would be redemption and restoration of the Whiteman's blood which had been mixed with that of the Negro."
(Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi in 1947)

Faith -- you're the best. Seriously.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 09:55:03 AM
rational basis review--limiting marriage to opposite sex couples furthers procreation--essential to the survival of the human race. sounds like something else I read recently on my friend's facebook page...if we allow same-sex couples to marry then it will mark the end of civilization as we know it. period.

"If our buildings, our highways, and our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States of America would be destroyed and all hope for civilization would be as impossible for a Negroid America as would be redemption and restoration of the Whiteman's blood which had been mixed with that of the Negro."
(Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi in 1947)


Because we'll all suddenly become homosexuals??   :D
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 09:57:25 AM
exactly annabel. allowing same-sex marriage will stop procreation. i'll want to have sex with miss p if we allow lesbians to get married. because clearly thats the only thing holding me back from getting with a girl.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: mivida2k on July 26, 2006, 09:58:50 AM
We will ignore that the "greatness" of America is because of that Negro.  I like how folks have forgotten that the original man and woman were created and lived in Africa.

DNA tests for all who don't think that they have any "negro" blood in them.  

My father has suggested that lesbians and gay men each be placed on separate islands to test the procreation theory. 
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 09:59:55 AM
exactly annabel. allowing same-sex marriage will stop procreation. i'll want to have sex with miss p if we allow lesbians to get married. because clearly thats the only thing holding me back from getting with a girl.



ME TOO!!!   :D
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 10:07:08 AM
when you guys read that senator Bilbo quote does anybody else envision him standing on the mountaintop with the lightning flashing behind him?  :D
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 10:13:10 AM
All very persuasive arguments from you all, but none provide legal analysis.  Sure, you disagree with the decision, but are there flaws in the legal reasoning?  If not, then hey, makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 10:14:38 AM
Random question lacoste: What's your stance on the "gay marriage" issue?
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 10:17:46 AM
Define stance.

I think that the public should be able to decide for itself whether or not it wants gay marriage.  That's why I'm in favor of decision such as Washington's here and New York's recent one.  Let the legislative branch figure it out.  If people aren't happy with that result, elect new representatives and change the law.  I'm not one for judges legislating from the bench.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 10:19:43 AM
Define stance.

I think that the public should be able to decide for itself whether or not it wants gay marriage.  That's why I'm in favor of decision such as Washington's here and New York's recent one.  Let the legislative branch figure it out.  If people aren't happy with that result, elect new representatives and change the law.  I'm not one for judges legislating from the bench.


I see...thanks much!  :)
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 10:30:29 AM
well lacoste in terms of legal analysis we probably all realize that rational basis review means that whatever the law says goes for the most part. there are very limited instances in which a law is analyzed according to rational basis review and is then struck down by the courts. However, I think that the lgbt legal strategy needs to focus on getting the decisions to point in the direction of heightened scrutiny for lgbt folks b/f the court will strike down doma type laws. The tiers are manipulated so often and with such irony that at this point all they do is provide a cloak for those who oppose a particular minority group to hide behind. Like red. said they're dressed in their sunday best. Look, we didn't do it of our own accord--we were just following rational basis review. And we all know that courts hate to be reversed, so there you have it. Faith's faux legal analysis.  :D

and in general even though I don't think gay marriage is a pressing issue (partly b/c I think the gay rights agenda is being controlled by the well off white lgbt community) it is still unfortunate that arguments such as allowing someone to get married or not get married will end procreation. seems to me that its also a thinly veiled issue of the fear of a non-white (black) planet. and its sad that some consider that rational in 2006.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 12:09:42 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: mivida2k on July 26, 2006, 12:18:10 PM
Look how they outed NSyncer Lance Bass (Ya'll know you used to love them)

NEW YORK -        Lance Bass, band member of 'N Sync, says he's gay and in a "very stable" relationship with a reality show star. Bass, who formed 'N Sync with        Justin Timberlake,        JC Chasez,        Joey Fatone and        Chris Kirkpatrick, tells People magazine that he didn't earlier disclose his sexuality because he didn't want to
 
"I knew that I was in this popular band and I had four other guys' careers in my hand, and I knew that if I ever acted on it or even said (that I was gay), it would overpower everything," he tells the magazine.

'N Sync is known for a string of hits including "Bye Bye Bye" and "It's Gonna Be Me." The band went on hiatus in 2002. Bass has also found headlines for undertaking astronaut training and failing to raise money for a trip into space.

Bass says he wondered if his coming out could prompt "the end of 'N Sync." He explains, "So I had that weight on me of like, `Wow, if I ever let anyone know, it's bad.' So I just never did."

The singer says he's in a "very stable" relationship with 32-year-old actor Reichen Lehmkuhl, winner of season four of CBS' "Amazing Race."

Bass and Fatone, 29, are developing a sitcom pilot inspired by the screwball comedy "The Odd Couple," in which his character will be gay.

"The thing is, I'm not ashamed — that's the one thing I went to say," Bass says. "I don't think it's wrong, I'm not devastated going through this. I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life. I'm just happy."

___

Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 12:21:11 PM
Awwww, how romantic  :)
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on July 26, 2006, 12:21:26 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.




Ditto!


Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 12:25:18 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: mivida2k on July 26, 2006, 12:31:40 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

The private relationships of two individuals (consenting) should not be regulated.  Maybe we should go back to the days when blacks were forbidden from marrying whites. 
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 12:33:44 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

The private relationships of two individuals (consenting) should not be regulated.  Maybe we should go back to the days when blacks were forbidden from marrying whites. 



*snore*  How original.  In fact, I've never heard that line of argumentation ever before in my whole entire life.  I mean, that reasoning totally blows my position out of the water.  Sinks my battleship.  You've got an unsubstantiated value judgement ("should not be regulated") and then a tenuously connected and rote reference to civil rights.  You should trademark this approach; it's bound to blow up.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 12:37:04 PM
Oh, and the obligatory :-* so fists don't fly.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: _BP_ on July 26, 2006, 12:53:46 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

This is telling!  So is it really an attack on homosexuality itself under the cover of protecting marriage?

And religions other than Islam are against homosexuality, but if we were discussing someone being imprisoned in Saudia Arabia for homosexual acts then the discussion could center on Islamic Law.  But since we're talking about the U.S.....
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on July 26, 2006, 01:03:30 PM
eeaazy ...selecta...everyone has a right to their opinion...

this is what i dont understand about the whole legislative argument...yes the legislature is there to make law...but the courts (Supreme Court anyway) is there to make sure said laws are Constitutional....so maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand the mindset of people who say that courts should not legislate...how is overturning or upholding a law based on Constitionality legislating?

also the reason people keep bringing up the mixed marriage thing is because it too was a law on the books of many states at the time...it was taken to the high court and struck down...if a state wants to pass a law to say that it will not recognize civil unions that its perogative...but then that must apply to everyone not just G$L...

why do some view the whole thing as forcing religious beliefs on other people? Im guessing because  outside of "God meaning marriage to be between a man and a woman" which is no offense a totally ridiculous arguement there really is no reasonable basis for denying 2 consenting adults the right to have civil unions....that being said I am an INTJ ...and am open to hearing an argument that may change my mind....haven't so far
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 01:22:43 PM
eeaazy ...selecta...everyone has a right to their opinion...

this is what i dont understand about the whole legislative argument...yes the legislature is there to make law...but the courts (Supreme Court anyway) is there to make sure said laws are Constitutional....so maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand the mindset of people who say that courts should not legislate...how is overturning or upholding a law based on Constitionality legislating?


If the elected officials in Washington passed a Defense of Marriage Act and their Supreme Court overruled it, they'd be, in effect, saying "this legislation is not the type of policy we find idea and we will change it."  The same would be the case if a conservative court overturned a law enabling homosexual marriages.  Exercising judicial restraint means deferring to the legislative branch unless there is a clear constitutional issue.  Given the New York and Washington decisions, and the Supreme Court's reluctance to take up the issue, there seems to be no such issue.  Let the elected officials legislate.  At least their decisions can be changed if found unwise.


also the reason people keep bringing up the mixed marriage thing is because it too was a law on the books of many states at the time...it was taken to the high court and struck down...if a state wants to pass a law to say that it will not recognize civil unions that its perogative...but then that must apply to everyone not just G$L...



I don't think you have to apply it to everyone, and neither do most courts.  What basis do you have for making that claim?  Simply because the mixed marriage was a law on the books that was overturned does not mean that the same dynamic is at work here.  I would think you're missing some analysis in there to make the analogy stick.


why do some view the whole thing as forcing religious beliefs on other people? Im guessing because  outside of "God meaning marriage to be between a man and a woman" which is no offense a totally ridiculous arguement there really is no reasonable basis for denying 2 consenting adults the right to have civil unions....that being said I am an INTJ ...and am open to hearing an argument that may change my mind....haven't so far


A)  It's a totally ridiculous argument to you.  Why should that make it an invalid argument for someone else?

B)  That is not even one of the arguments considered when the rational basis test is applied.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 01:43:53 PM
Quote
Under this standard, DOMA is
constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential
to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the
children's biological parents.  Allowing same-sex couples to marry does
not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.


Main Entry: pro·cre·ate
Pronunciation: -"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth + creare to create -- more at PRO-, CREATE
transitive verb : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : PROPAGATE
intransitive verb : to beget or bring forth offspring : REPRODUCE

Same-sex marriage does further procreation as these couples also have the ability to produce offspring. Also, while both biological parents may not be present, at least one will be. While marriage may seek to foster an environment where both biological parents are present, they are many legal marriages today that are allowed to exist regardless of the absence of one or both biological parents.


Quote
The people of Washington have not had in the past nor,
at this time, are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to
marry a person of the same sex.
 

Homosexual activity is not illegal in the state of Washington. Therefore, if it is legal to engage in an emotional/sexual relationship with a consenting adult of the same sex, how is it reasonable to argue that people are not entitled to expect that they should be able to marry a person of the same sex?

Tangential ramble: It is interesting that the constitution seeks to look after a child's well-being by fostering scenarios where both biological parents are present. Shouldn't we aim to ensure the well-being of all children by making provisions for stable environments for children who are not fortunate enough to have the presence of both biological parents? It seems that allowing same-sex marriages would make more of these stable environments available to children who find themselves outside of this bracket.  
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 01:51:31 PM
Quote
Under this standard, DOMA is
constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential
to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by
encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the
children's biological parents.  Allowing same-sex couples to marry does
not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.


Main Entry: pro·cre·ate
Pronunciation: -"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth + creare to create -- more at PRO-, CREATE
transitive verb : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : PROPAGATE
intransitive verb : to beget or bring forth offspring : REPRODUCE

Same-sex marriage does further procreation as these couples also have the ability to produce offspring. Also, while both biological parents may not be present, at least one will be. While marriage may seek to foster an environment where both biological parents are present, they are many legal marriages today that are allowed to exist regardless of the absence of one or both biological parents.


Quote
The people of Washington have not had in the past nor,
at this time, are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to
marry a person of the same sex.
 

Homosexual activity is not illegal in the state of Washington. Therefore, if it is legal to engage in an emotional/sexual relationship with a consenting adult of the same sex, how is it reasonable to argue that people are not entitled to expect that they should be able to marry a person of the same sex?

Tangential ramble: It is interesting that the constitution seeks to look after a child's well-being by fostering scenarios where both biological parents are present. Shouldn't we aim to ensure the well-being of all children by making provisions for stable environments for children who are not fortunate enough to have the presence of both biological parents? It seems that allowing same-sex marriages would make more of these stable environments available to children who find themselves outside of this bracket.  




Even if possible (assuming that enough gay and lesbian couples would be willing and financially able to go through with all that is required) to "procreate," the legislature still has a rational basis to prefer heterosexual marriage -- it "furthers" procreation a whole lot easier and more reliably than homosexual couples are able to.  Also, the judge argues that the legislature thinks heterosexual marriage can forseeably further the nurturing of a child by it's biological parents PLURAL.  Sure, artificial insemination and other methods can produce children with one biological parent in homosexual marriages, but not with both.  And wanting to see children raised with both biological parents is a rational basis for the law.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/kitten_thread.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BrerAnansi on July 26, 2006, 02:01:31 PM
I think from my earlier post on the main board that everyone knows where I stand on this issue...but just on the procreation side of the argument...the science is in place so that a child can be born with the genes of both gay parents...cell fusion...with an accepting political climate it could become as common as the fertility techniques used by doctors in the cases of couples who are deemed infertile..so this need not be part of the counterargument...

"Sure, artificial insemination and other methods can produce children with one biological parent in homosexual marriages, but not with both.  And wanting to see children raised with both biological parents is a rational basis for the law."

Furthermore egg donations, surrogate mothers and the like that result in a child being raised in a family where only one parent is a biological parent seems to be fine by the court as long as those parents are heterosexual...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 02:03:01 PM

Even if possible (assuming that enough gay and lesbian couples would be willing and financially able to go through with all that is required) to "procreate," the legislature still has a rational basis to prefer heterosexual marriage -- it "furthers" procreation a whole lot easier and more reliably than homosexual couples are able to.  Also, the judge argues that the legislature thinks heterosexual marriage can forseeably further the nurturing of a child by it's biological parents PLURAL.  Sure, artificial insemination and other methods can produce children with one biological parent in homosexual marriages, but not with both.  And wanting to see children raised with both biological parents is a rational basis for the law.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/kitten_thread.jpg)


Just because you "prefer" heterosexual marriage does not mean that homosexual marriage does not further procreation. The judge himself stated that "personal views must not interfere with (his) responsibility to decide cases..."

Wanting to see a child raised to both biological parents may be a "rational basis". However, it is not illegal for:

1. A widowed woman (whose child's biological father is now deceased) to be married

or

2. A man who has sole custody of his biological children to marry someone other then their biological mother
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:11:33 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...We have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:13:16 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...We have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:14:53 PM

Even if possible (assuming that enough gay and lesbian couples would be willing and financially able to go through with all that is required) to "procreate," the legislature still has a rational basis to prefer heterosexual marriage -- it "furthers" procreation a whole lot easier and more reliably than homosexual couples are able to.  Also, the judge argues that the legislature thinks heterosexual marriage can forseeably further the nurturing of a child by it's biological parents PLURAL.  Sure, artificial insemination and other methods can produce children with one biological parent in homosexual marriages, but not with both.  And wanting to see children raised with both biological parents is a rational basis for the law.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/kitten_thread.jpg)


Just because you "prefer" heterosexual marriage does not mean that homosexual marriage does not further procreation. The judge himself stated that "personal views must not interfere with (his) responsibility to decide cases..."

Wanting to see a child raised to both biological parents may be a "rational basis". However, it is not illegal for:

1. A widowed woman (whose child's biological father is now deceased) to be married

or

2. A man who has sole custody of his biological children to marry someone other then their biological mother


Okay, but there you admit that "Wanting to see a child raised to both biological parents may be a 'rational basis'."  That's the only thing that needs to be considered.  If other situations do not meet this goal, oh well.  They could and probably do rest on other justifications.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:15:34 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...we have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?

No, the laws against murder are based on the compelling interests of the state, homey. these just happen to coincide with the bible. Now, if we banned sex before marriage, that would be another story. The government should be working to protect society by making laws that benefit society. Bans on gay marriage don't do this; instead, they impose a specific moral standard on people when they should be to pursue any morality they like, provided they aren't hurting anyone else.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 02:19:17 PM

We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?


Murder laws protect a human being's fundamental right to life.


Just because some religions agree does not mean we are legislating morality.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:19:32 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...we have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?

No, the laws against murder are based on the compelling interests of the state, homey. these just happen to coincide with the bible. Now, if we banned sex before marriage, that would be another story.



Um, says who, homey?  You assume that there is a secular basis for murder laws and assume there is a religious one for preferring heterosexual marriage.  You have no evidence to back up either.  Not to mention I take issue with your contention that any religious basis for a law makes that law unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:20:47 PM

We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?


Murder laws protect a human being's fundamental right to life.


Just because some religions agree does not mean we are legislating morality.



Took the words right out of my mouth.  Just because religious folks are against gay marriage does not mean that religious reasons are behind a preference for heterosexual marriage.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BrerAnansi on July 26, 2006, 02:21:58 PM
Lacoste, there is good reason that murder is against the law...no system of order would be able to survive if murder was commonplace...note how not all of the ten commandments were translated into law...anyway pretending that the blockades put in the path of the "gay marriage" movement has to do with the law and not religion is silly...when I was much younger in the early 90s (when the movement first started to form) I remember not even understanding why it was an issue...it seemed clear cut to me...the church and state are separated...the state grants the right of legal union, civil union, partnership..whatever you want to call it, it wouldn't matter much...and should there be gay people who wanted to be married they would direct their queries to the church...if the churches they would ask were anything like the churches I attended...the answer would be no...case closed...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:26:11 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...we have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?

No, the laws against murder are based on the compelling interests of the state, homey. these just happen to coincide with the bible. Now, if we banned sex before marriage, that would be another story.

Um, says who, homey?  You assume that there is a secular basis for murder laws and assume there is a religious one for preferring heterosexual marriage.  You have no evidence to back up either.  Not to mention I take issue with your contention that any religious basis for a law makes that law unconstitutional.

Our constitution explicitly grants individuals the freedom of religion. If my rweligion endorses homosexual marriage, and provided it is completely consentual, I can't see how the text of teh constitution would oppose this. Furthermore, in contemporary Western society, states do in fact protect the seperation of church and state. As such, laws based only on religious grounds are not only unconstitutional, they also reflect ignorance in regards to the failures of church and state amalgamation in the past and present. We don't live in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 02:26:43 PM
Okay, but there you admit that "Wanting to see a child raised to both biological parents may be a 'rational basis'."  That's the only thing that needs to be considered.  If other situations do not meet this goal, oh well.  They could and probably do rest on other justifications.


I said "may" implying that there is a possibility that the presence of both biological parents are in the best interest of a child. However, the are many instances in which the presence of both biological parents can be to the detriment of a child.

This stance seems to suggest that one is not truly interested in the well-being of the child or one would entertain the possibility that a child's best interest can be served through numerous living situations, not just the narrow circumstances set forth by the judge.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:28:33 PM
Lacoste, there is good reason that murder is against the law...no system of order would be able to survive if murder was commonplace...note how not all of the ten commandments were translated into law...anyway pretending that the blockades put in the path of the "gay marriage" movement has to do with the law and not religion is silly...when I was much younger in the early 90s (when the movement first started to form) I remember not even understanding why it was an issue...it seemed clear cut to me...the church and state are separated...the state grants the right of legal union, civil union, partnership..whatever you want to call it, it wouldn't matter much...and should there be gay people who wanted to be married they would direct their queries to the church...if the churches they would ask were anything like the churches I attended...the answer would be no...case closed...



What is a "good reason" for a law is best left up to the legislature to decide.  You and I could sit here and argue for days if tradition, religion, and/or societal utility were valid reasons for this or that policy.  But we won't agree, likely.  Let a legislature figure it out.  If you don't like the results, elect someone whose views on the topic more closely align with your own.  

Again, arguing that religion is the reason behind the our society's historical preference for heterosexual marriage is one positions.  Others might hold another.  It is entirely plausible that there are other rational grounds for such a policy.  As for the separation between church and state, I still don't see how this extends to supposed policy rationalizations stemming from moral convictions that are likely religious in character.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:31:17 PM
Can you offer some secular justifications for the ban on sam-sex marriage? I certainly can't think of any.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:32:52 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...we have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?

No, the laws against murder are based on the compelling interests of the state, homey. these just happen to coincide with the bible. Now, if we banned sex before marriage, that would be another story.

Um, says who, homey?  You assume that there is a secular basis for murder laws and assume there is a religious one for preferring heterosexual marriage.  You have no evidence to back up either.  Not to mention I take issue with your contention that any religious basis for a law makes that law unconstitutional.

Our constitution explicitly grants individuals the freedom of religion. If my rweligion endorses homosexual marriage, and provided it is completely consentual, I can't see how the text of teh constitution would oppose this. Furthermore, in contemporary Western society, states do in fact protect the seperation of church and state. As such, laws based only on religious grounds are not only unconstitutional, they also reflect ignorance in regards to the failures of church and state amalgamation in the past and present. We don't live in Afghanistan.


And if my religion is expressly against homosexuality, why should your religious views take precedence over mine?  Especially when the majority of America's moral views support my position?  "Separation of church and state" can mean many things -- foremost of which is the rule against establishing an official state religion, or discriminating against a religion.  Throwing an abstract phrase out there does not give any good reason why a law grounded in a moral conviction that has a religious basis is invalid.  If that is the case then we should probably throw out the majority of laws produced by the U.S. Congress.  The majority of America has a set of moral standards informed by their religious beliefs.  How are we to tell which laws were grounded in religious morality and which were not?
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:34:44 PM
Okay, but there you admit that "Wanting to see a child raised to both biological parents may be a 'rational basis'."  That's the only thing that needs to be considered.  If other situations do not meet this goal, oh well.  They could and probably do rest on other justifications.


I said "may" implying that there is a possibility that the presence of both biological parents are in the best interest of a child. However, the are many instances in which the presence of both biological parents can be to the detriment of a child.

This stance seems to suggest that one is not truly interested in the well-being of the child or one would entertain the possibility that a child's best interest can be served through numerous living situations, not just the narrow circumstances set forth by the judge.


It doesn't matter if there are situations in which the presence of both biological parents can be a detriment to a child or not; as long as a legislature finds that the presence of both parents is something worth encouraging in a child's life, they have met the legal standard for rational basis, it seems.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BrerAnansi on July 26, 2006, 02:35:36 PM
Except that those policy rationalizations are little more than stylized hyprocrisy...if there was such compelling interest in the welfare of potential children, the makeup of the average American family would be quite different...and I understand where you're going with the reasoning that a law shouldn't be overturned on its face simply because the rationale behind it may stem from religious convictions but because of the nature of the state it also has to be able to stand alone on some other rational justification...I just don't that justification in this case...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 02:41:11 PM
Except that those policy rationalizations are little more than stylized hyprocrisy...if there was such compelling interest in the welfare of potential children, the makeup of the average American family would be quite different...and I understand where you're going with the reasoning that a law shouldn't be overturned on its face simply because the rationale behind it may stem from religious convictions but because of the nature of the state it also has to be able to stand alone on some other rational justification...I just don't that justification in this case...


And I do, and reasonable minds will continue to disagree.  In which case this boils down to little more than a difference over policy prescription.  As such, the proper venue for this difference to be reconciled is in the elected branches of government nationwide rather than in by unelected jurists.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:44:48 PM
Fewer things bother me more than government's attempts to intrude into people's private lives and forcibly impose Christian morality upon them. The capacity to pursue happiness is granted by the Constitution, and as long as no one is harmed, who can legitametely(sic) dicate who may marry and who may not? I think Bush should be devoting his time to other, more compelling issues.

ok, forget that last part.



Religions other than Christianity are against homosexuality.  I fail to see how regulating this matter is "forcibly impos[ing] Christianity" on anyone.

Fine, but by banning gay marriage, the government is certainly legislating some form of morality and religion. Whether this set of morality is Christianity isn't important...we have the seperation of state and ANY church in this country (or at least we did).


We legislate morality regularly.  Should we overturn murder laws because the Ten Commandments say, "Thou Shalt Not.." ?

No, the laws against murder are based on the compelling interests of the state, homey. these just happen to coincide with the bible. Now, if we banned sex before marriage, that would be another story.

Um, says who, homey?  You assume that there is a secular basis for murder laws and assume there is a religious one for preferring heterosexual marriage.  You have no evidence to back up either.  Not to mention I take issue with your contention that any religious basis for a law makes that law unconstitutional.

Our constitution explicitly grants individuals the freedom of religion. If my rweligion endorses homosexual marriage, and provided it is completely consentual, I can't see how the text of teh constitution would oppose this. Furthermore, in contemporary Western society, states do in fact protect the seperation of church and state. As such, laws based only on religious grounds are not only unconstitutional, they also reflect ignorance in regards to the failures of church and state amalgamation in the past and present. We don't live in Afghanistan.


And if my religion is expressly against homosexuality, why should your religious views take precedence over mine?  Especially when the majority of America's moral views support my position?  "Separation of church and state" can mean many things -- foremost of which is the rule against establishing an official state religion, or discriminating against a religion.  Throwing an abstract phrase out there does not give any good reason why a law grounded in a moral conviction that has a religious basis is invalid.  If that is the case then we should probably throw out the majority of laws produced by the U.S. Congress.  The majority of America has a set of moral standards informed by their religious beliefs.  How are we to tell which laws were grounded in religious morality and which were not?

I'm amazed that you are carrying on two distinct arguments with two different people at the same time.

If you religion is focused on restricting fundamental freedoms granted by the constitution, then yes, you shouldn't be successful. If people can't pursue their own beliefs without hindering others, then they will never be comfortable in within western society. the freedom of one person to express himself is just as important as that of everyone elses' (taken striaght from my man john stuart mill)
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 02:46:30 PM
this is a case of people cloaking religious arguments in secular rational bases. Annabel, those are good examples that undermine the "rational" reasoning. But, the truth is that the cases will continue to go this way until there is someone brave enough to say that actually b/c people are trying to promulgate legislation especially against gay people, perhaps they should qualify as a protected class. b/c at the end of the day almost anything passes for rational basis. thats part of the irony of how the tiers are used today.

and lacoste, the arguments about legislating from the bench really boggle my mind coming from a black person. I'm not picking on you, I've heard them from other black folks, but I always ask the same question. How can you, a member of a minority, say that courts should not be empowered to protect minority rights? The majority will not protect minority rights--thats part of the mandate of the judiciary at this point. They're insulated from majority rule for that reason. I will never understand it...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: LeveragedSellout on July 26, 2006, 02:49:05 PM
this is a case of people cloaking religious arguments in secular rational bases. Annabel, those are good examples that undermine the "rational" reasoning. But, the truth is that the cases will continue to go this way until there is someone brave enough to say that actually b/c people are trying to promulgate legislation especially against gay people, perhaps they should qualify as a protected class. b/c at the end of the day almost anything passes for rational basis. thats part of the irony of how the tiers are used today.

and lacoste, the arguments about legislating from the bench really boggle my mind coming from a black person. I'm not picking on you, I've heard them from other black folks, but I always ask the same question. How can you, a member of a minority, say that courts should not be empowered to protect minority rights? The majority will not protect minority rights--thats part of the mandate of the judiciary at this point. They're insulated from majority rule for that reason. I will never understand it...

Well, I suspect that legislation via the bench endangers democracy. Rights will never be guaranteed until society adopts a more benevolent outlook towards civil rights. I'm not sure that overstepping the constitution is a good way of going about this.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BrerAnansi on July 26, 2006, 02:50:04 PM

And if my religion is expressly against homosexuality, why should your religious views take precedence over mine?  Especially when the majority of America's moral views support my position?  "Separation of church and state" can mean many things -- foremost of which is the rule against establishing an official state religion, or discriminating against a religion.  Throwing an abstract phrase out there does not give any good reason why a law grounded in a moral conviction that has a religious basis is invalid.  If that is the case then we should probably throw out the majority of laws produced by the U.S. Congress.  The majority of America has a set of moral standards informed by their religious beliefs.  How are we to tell which laws were grounded in religious morality and which were not?

I agree with you here Lacoste...the majority of Americans have moral standards that are grounded in religious beliefs, but the majority of all Americans are not of the same faith in fact quite a few subscribe to no faith at all...faith isn't a prerequisite of this reglion-based morality...if you're a product of the society, to some extent you've absorbed its tenets...but there are certainly ways to distill a policy down to its lowest common denominator...there are many compelling rationalizations of why murder should be consider a serious and punishable offense...spanning from the religious to the philosophical to an instinctive understanding on a very base level that as living beings, life is our most precious commodity...divorce on the other hand was once not allowed, but once the church lost the power it had over government, the only compelling reason crumbled...there are other justifications for not seeking divorce as well but none on its own was compelling enough to support that decision, so divorce became legal and the other non-compelling reasons created a social taboo against divorce...like Talib asked earlier..what is the compelling non-religious rationale needed to counterbalance the religious rationale to support the ban on same-sex unions??...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on July 26, 2006, 02:57:05 PM
eeaazy ...selecta...everyone has a right to their opinion...

this is what i dont understand about the whole legislative argument...yes the legislature is there to make law...but the courts (Supreme Court anyway) is there to make sure said laws are Constitutional....so maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand the mindset of people who say that courts should not legislate...how is overturning or upholding a law based on Constitionality legislating?

[/quote

If the elected officials in Washington passed a Defense of Marriage Act and their Supreme Court overruled it, they'd be, in effect, saying "this legislation is not the type of policy we find idea and we will change it."  The same would be the case if a conservative court overturned a law enabling homosexual marriages.  Exercising judicial restraint means deferring to the legislative branch unless there is a clear constitutional issue.  Given the New York and Washington decisions, and the Supreme Court's reluctance to take up the issue, there seems to be no such issue.  Let the elected officials legislate.  At least their decisions can be changed if found unwise.


also the reason people keep bringing up the mixed marriage thing is because it too was a law on the books of many states at the time...it was taken to the high court and struck down...if a state wants to pass a law to say that it will not recognize civil unions that its perogative...but then that must apply to everyone not just G$L...



I don't think you have to apply it to everyone, and neither do most courts.  What basis do you have for making that claim?  Simply because the mixed marriage was a law on the books that was overturned does not mean that the same dynamic is at work here.  I would think you're missing some analysis in there to make the analogy stick.


why do some view the whole thing as forcing religious beliefs on other people? Im guessing because  outside of "God meaning marriage to be between a man and a woman" which is no offense a totally ridiculous arguement there really is no reasonable basis for denying 2 consenting adults the right to have civil unions....that being said I am an INTJ ...and am open to hearing an argument that may change my mind....haven't so far


A)  It's a totally ridiculous argument to you.  Why should that make it an invalid argument for someone else?

B)  That is not even one of the arguments considered when the rational basis test is applied.



my good sir as i said, im keeping it simple...had i the time or inclination to have my Opinion pass the rational basis test i would..but i dont...marriage is an institution created to secure rights and property....so yes when i hear people bring God and religion into it it strikes Me as ridiculous
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2006, 02:59:05 PM
It doesn't matter if there are situations in which the presence of both biological parents can be a detriment to a child or not; as long as a legislature finds that the presence of both parents is something worth encouraging in a child's life, they have met the legal standard for rational basis, it seems.


But the judge admits that the constitution seeks to promote procreation and the well-being of children. Limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is not to only way to promote the well-being of children. Same-sex marriage also promotes procreation and the encourages stable living environments which also promote the well-being of children.

Therefore, it seems that same-sex marriage passes the rational basis test as well...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BrerAnansi on July 26, 2006, 02:59:15 PM
Jarhead...can you format that post correctly...I want to read it but my eyes are just saying "NO"...
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: 2Lacoste on July 26, 2006, 03:00:10 PM
It doesn't matter if there are situations in which the presence of both biological parents can be a detriment to a child or not; as long as a legislature finds that the presence of both parents is something worth encouraging in a child's life, they have met the legal standard for rational basis, it seems.


But the judge admits that the constitution seeks to promote procreation and the well-being of children. Limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is not to only way to promote the well-being of children. Same-sex marriage also promotes procreation and the encourages stable living environments which also promote the well-being of children.

Therefore, it seems that same-sex marriage passes the rational basis test as well...


So if Washington voters decided to change the law to support gay marriage, it'd be constitutional.  But they haven't.  And it's their prerogative, not the judiciary's.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on July 26, 2006, 03:02:11 PM
this is a case of people cloaking religious arguments in secular rational bases. Annabel, those are good examples that undermine the "rational" reasoning. But, the truth is that the cases will continue to go this way until there is someone brave enough to say that actually b/c people are trying to promulgate legislation especially against gay people, perhaps they should qualify as a protected class. b/c at the end of the day almost anything passes for rational basis. thats part of the irony of how the tiers are used today.

and lacoste, the arguments about legislating from the bench really boggle my mind coming from a black person. I'm not picking on you, I've heard them from other black folks, but I always ask the same question. How can you, a member of a minority, say that courts should not be empowered to protect minority rights? The majority will not protect minority rights--thats part of the mandate of the judiciary at this point. They're insulated from majority rule for that reason. I will never understand it...



me either sister other than...people think its ok to discriminate against gays...i mean i gotta call a spade a spade
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 26, 2006, 03:04:11 PM
Rights will never be guaranteed until society adopts a more benevolent outlook towards civil rights.

that was so tight. I thought equal rights for some were guaranteed by the Constitution. so when can we expect this more benevolent attitude change to happen? 2008? 2020? 3000?! The argument that Lacoste makes is that for the judges to have struck down this law would = legislating from the bench. My point is that that argument, while persuasive, is one that I have trouble accepting from the mouths of a black person b/c a black person that grew up in the South should be able to see the difference between the courts making law and the courts protecting minority rights.(in other words I don't think it is legislating from the bench, but Lacoste sees it in that light) But, for most conservative Christians I think their point is to use that argument, b/c they just don't think gay rights are minority rights that are worth protecting.

this is a case of people cloaking religious arguments in secular rational bases. Annabel, those are good examples that undermine the "rational" reasoning. But, the truth is that the cases will continue to go this way until there is someone brave enough to say that actually b/c people are trying to promulgate legislation especially against gay people, perhaps they should qualify as a protected class. b/c at the end of the day almost anything passes for rational basis. thats part of the irony of how the tiers are used today.

and lacoste, the arguments about legislating from the bench really boggle my mind coming from a black person. I'm not picking on you, I've heard them from other black folks, but I always ask the same question. How can you, a member of a minority, say that courts should not be empowered to protect minority rights? The majority will not protect minority rights--thats part of the mandate of the judiciary at this point. They're insulated from majority rule for that reason. I will never understand it...

Well, I suspect that legislation via the bench endangers democracy. Rights will never be guaranteed until society adopts a more benevolent outlook towards civil rights. I'm not sure that overstepping the constitution is a good way of going about this.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on July 26, 2006, 03:37:09 PM
faith...i just noticed your signature


"you ate the food.."  :) :D ;D 
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: _BP_ on July 26, 2006, 08:48:13 PM

And if my religion is expressly against homosexuality, why should your religious views take precedence over mine?  Especially when the majority of America's moral views support my position?  "Separation of church and state" can mean many things -- foremost of which is the rule against establishing an official state religion, or discriminating against a religion.  Throwing an abstract phrase out there does not give any good reason why a law grounded in a moral conviction that has a religious basis is invalid.  If that is the case then we should probably throw out the majority of laws produced by the U.S. Congress.  The majority of America has a set of moral standards informed by their religious beliefs.  How are we to tell which laws were grounded in religious morality and which were not?

I agree with you here Lacoste...the majority of Americans have moral standards that are grounded in religious beliefs, but the majority of all Americans are not of the same faith in fact quite a few subscribe to no faith at all...faith isn't a prerequisite of this reglion-based morality...if you're a product of the society, to some extent you've absorbed its tenets...but there are certainly ways to distill a policy down to its lowest common denominator...there are many compelling rationalizations of why murder should be consider a serious and punishable offense...spanning from the religious to the philosophical to an instinctive understanding on a very base level that as living beings, life is our most precious commodity...divorce on the other hand was once not allowed, but once the church lost the power it had over government, the only compelling reason crumbled...there are other justifications for not seeking divorce as well but none on its own was compelling enough to support that decision, so divorce became legal and the other non-compelling reasons created a social taboo against divorce...like Talib asked earlier..what is the compelling non-religious rationale needed to counterbalance the religious rationale to support the ban on same-sex unions??...

Did you just not see this question Lacoste? It was asked twice homie.

Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: supergirluw on July 26, 2006, 10:59:21 PM
sorry to jump in on ya'll's board, but I'm from Washington (State) and, more than anything, want this in my unreads.

But, I did want to say something.

I'm heterosexual, but I will never have children. For personal reasons, I do not want to raise a child in this world (not being selfish - there are overhanging medical conditions that would more likely make me a terrible parent than anything else.) However, while living in Seattle, I met many fabulous gay and lesbian couples. Couples that live their lives together, some that have been for decades. Several have children - whether theirs from a previous marriage and since adopted into the homosexual relationship, or through invitro/adoption otherwise.

Now, these couples are reproducing and raising children that I will never raise. I will get married - but wait! If the purpose of marriage is to raise a child, what is my "purpose" - as an interest of the state - for getting married, according to the WA Supreme Court? And if these couples ARE promoting life, as i'll call it, why don't THEY get to get married (...instead of me even?)

I'll be surprised if, regardless of the affirmation or reversal of this decision, children become a prereq for marriage because of this decision. Because this has NOTHING to do with Chrisianity - it is about the interest of the state in continuing the existance of a state, and the priveleges that come with this.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 27, 2006, 07:39:38 AM
this is a case of people cloaking religious arguments in secular rational bases. Annabel, those are good examples that undermine the "rational" reasoning. But, the truth is that the cases will continue to go this way until there is someone brave enough to say that actually b/c people are trying to promulgate legislation especially against gay people, perhaps they should qualify as a protected class. b/c at the end of the day almost anything passes for rational basis. thats part of the irony of how the tiers are used today.

and lacoste, the arguments about legislating from the bench really boggle my mind coming from a black person. I'm not picking on you, I've heard them from other black folks, but I always ask the same question. How can you, a member of a minority, say that courts should not be empowered to protect minority rights? The majority will not protect minority rights--thats part of the mandate of the judiciary at this point. They're insulated from majority rule for that reason. I will never understand it...


Indeed.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 27, 2006, 07:57:03 AM
Today they had a radio call-in asking about gay people who feel like they can't come out at their job, the way that the N'Sync guy did. But, this story was relevant to this thread.

A guy called in and said he couldn't come out at his job b/c he works at a prison. And then they were like, oh yeah i understand that. But, do you think they already know? And he said, well I'm married to a lesbian so if anybody asks then thats true so there aren't alot of questions. So, then they asked how that happened, and he said that he was in the military and met this lesbian and they got married to get the military benefits and avoid the don't ask/don't tell policy. Now that they're both out of the military, he lives in il and she lives in michigan. How crazy is that? For the sanctity of marriage's sake, I'd much rather see him married to the actual person he wants to spend his life with. LOL!
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nemesis on July 27, 2006, 08:00:21 AM
Yeah, call me stupid but I think marriage is about a heck of a lot more than "one man and one woman".

Whatever happened to love?
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: _BP_ on July 27, 2006, 08:30:14 AM
http://www.irregulartimes.com/freedomhypocrites.html
Examples of Republican Hypocrisy:

Ronald Reagan tried to join the American Communist Party's leadership, but when he was rejected, started naming other Communists to Joseph McCarthy's House Unamerican Activities Committee.


Newt Gingrich tried to have Bill Clinton thrown out of office for having extramarital sex, at the same time that Gingrich himself was having an affair.


Strom Thurmond supported racial segregation laws forbidding people of different ethnic background from having sex, even though he had himself fathered a child with an underage African-American servant who was working in his parents' house.


Rush Limbaugh spent years calling for strict sentences for drug abusers, but suddenly changed his tune and pleaded for leniency when he was caught illegally abusing drugs himself.


The latest example of this pattern of conservative hypocrisy about freedom comes from Virginia Congressman Ed Schrock.

Ed Schrock has been one of the most conservative Republicans in Washington D.C. - so staunch in his cultural conservatism that his voting record earned a 92 percent approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Mr. Schrock not only voted for outlawing same-sex marriage, he actually co-sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, a piece of legislation that would have made same sex marriage automatically illegal nationwide.

In his time in Congress, Schrock has sought every possible opportunity to persecute gays and lesbians. For example, Congressman Schrock made a big deal about publicizing his opposition to Bill Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, which attempted to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States military. In his speeches against toleration of gays and lesbians in the military, Ed Schrock raised his voice to a shrill pitch in order to emphasize how icky he believed homosexuals to be. "You're in the showers with them!" he screeched. "You're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them!"

In short, Republican politician Ed Schrock used his power as a member of Congress to prevent gays and lesbians from having access to the basic freedoms that other Americans enjoy. You'd think that Mr. Schrock was himself a strict heterosexual family man. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. Here's the kicker: It turns out that Ed Schrock himself regularly engaged in gay sex.

In August 2004, activist Michael Rogers used his Blogactive web site to carefully research and then expose Ed Schrock's hypocrisy. Before outing Schrock, Rogers gained corroborating evidence from several sources, including an audiotape of Schrock calling up a gay dating service in order to request a good-looking, fit young male with whom to have casual sex:

I'd just like to get together with a guy from time to time just to -- just to play. I'd like him to be, uh, in very good shape, flat stomach, good chest, good arms, well hung, cut, uh, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just a fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just, uh, take it from there. Hope to hear from you. Bye

-
I have a feeling he's not the only hypocrite on this side of the issue.

Washington post article about his resignation in 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47194-2004Aug30.html
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: faith2005 on July 27, 2006, 08:37:45 AM
lol! so ridiculous.
Title: Re: Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jarhead on August 20, 2006, 02:54:20 PM
so typical all the worst homophobes are closet cases imo straight people just dont really care..."me thinks the lady doth protest too much"