Law School Discussion

Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Legislative Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

LeveragedSellout

  • ***
  • 70
  • Swagger on a hundred, thousand, trillion
    • View Profile
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).

2Lacoste

  • ****
  • 4158
  • Johan Santana for President
    • View Profile
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.." ?

2Lacoste

  • ****
  • 4158
  • Johan Santana for President
    • View Profile

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.




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.

LeveragedSellout

  • ***
  • 70
  • Swagger on a hundred, thousand, trillion
    • View Profile
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.

Nemesis

  • *****
  • 8220
  • The High Priestess
    • View Profile

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.

2Lacoste

  • ****
  • 4158
  • Johan Santana for President
    • View Profile
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.

2Lacoste

  • ****
  • 4158
  • Johan Santana for President
    • View Profile

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.

BrerAnansi

  • ****
  • 1218
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
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...

LeveragedSellout

  • ***
  • 70
  • Swagger on a hundred, thousand, trillion
    • View Profile
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.

Nemesis

  • *****
  • 8220
  • The High Priestess
    • View Profile
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.