Same-Sex Marriage

[SliverKing]

So your basic point is... the system sucks, people with money get away with things, nothing will change so STFU?

Just because there are other injustices in the world doesnt make this right.  How about I steal your car, but because a carbomb killed some children in Iraq, you dont do anything?

Sure its not the biggest injustice in our system, and I my life is not going to be radically altered regardless... However, that doesnt mean I have to look at blatent favoritism in my government and say that its ideal... because it isnt.  Its an inequality and I choose to disagree with it.

[Saucemaster]

Yes, it may not be fair that certain marriages/unions are not recognized/rewarded by the state. But I would hardly list the Gay marriage issue as one of the top burning inequalities of our tax system. Two of my best friends are corporate accountants, and it is disgusting what lots of money lets you get away with. To those that cry foul on marriage tax breaks, I say "boo hoo", welcome into the "I'm getting screwed by the man club".

The existence of injustice B, possibly greater than injustice A (which in any case is arguable) doesn't mean that people shouldn't take action against A.  Obviously "suck it up" isn't a response that's going to solve what you admit to be an "unfair" situation.

This quote is the classic argument of the slippery slope. Undefined criteria (i.e., people saying something should stop because its "bad", or wrong") is dangerous. My example of polygamy was one, and others have been brought up in this thread. To change marriage laws opens up the floodgates for huge reform, and generally people don't want to deal with that.

Polygamy is the only valid comparison I've seen so far.  For my part, I don't see any compelling reason for polygamy to remain illegal, either.  If all parties give consent, and it doesn't harm anyone, what business does the government have in it?  HOWEVER, this is exactly why I think we need to do away with government-sponsored marriage in the first place.

You know, it occurs to me that polygamous couples are more likely to have a greater number of children than monogamous couples.  And husbands who have affairs are more likely to produce a greater number of children than those who remain faithful to their wives.  If marriage is about the government sponsoring child-production, shouldn't we be offering tax incentives and benefits to unfaithful spouses and shouldn't we be actually pushing for polygamy?

People aren't being killed, or tortured, genocide is not being committed. Fundamental rights are not being violated. Let's try and put this in perspective, and realize that until American values change, same sex marriages have little chance in our courts to overcome highly popular norms on empty "moral" grounds.

Being treated as a second-class citizen based on your sexual preference violates no "fundamental rights"?  I think there are a lot of people who'd beg to differ.  On the face of it, this amounts to an even more ludicrous extension of your principle above.  Now we're supposed to ignore the issue not because of *actual* wrongs that are greater than the one under discussion, we're supposed to ignore it because there are *potentially* greater wrongs that aren't actually occuring.  Inequity is inequity, on whatever scale.  And there are certainly a lot of people who have a different view of the scale of the inequity than you do.

The 'but if we allow that, where will it end?' argument is so frequently used and so nonsensical that there must be a nice Latin name for it.

In themselves, slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious, unless they rely on non causa pro causa (i.e. they postulate some event A causing event B causing event C... but in fact one of the causal relationships is in error).  There's your Latin name.


EDIT: Well, looks like I was beaten to the punch.

[Matt]

Where did you get the idea that tax breaks are meant to encourage childbirth, Brad? As far as I know you get the same deduction for an adopted child as you do your own progeny. I think these tax breaks are not meant to encourage childbirth but rather to help out those upon whom others are dependent. If a low-income couple can't support their children, then the government is going to have to take care of them anyway, and in a bigger, more wasteful, and more crueler way. Better to keep them from losing their home to begin with.

- Matt mentioned that he would never want the government saying who he can/can not marry. The truth is, currently, I can preside over the marriage of my cat and my dog, and tell everyone how happy a couple they are if I want to.

No one is talking about what you do in your living room. You can throw the word around all you like but people here are talking about capital-m Marriage as the government recognizes it. Currently no part of the federal law tells me who I can marry (state law is a different matter) and in fact the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Clinton in 1996 specifically mentions that the states are free to define it as they see fit.

People aren't being killed (see africa), or tortured (see middle east), genocide is not being committed (see world war II). Fundamental rights are not being violated. Let's try and put this in perspective, and realize that until American values change, same sex marriages have little chance in our courts to overcome highly popular norms on empty "moral" grounds

The problem with this is the same problem we had with the south in the first half of the century. Seperate but equal is not really equal.

I think that fundamental rights are being violated. Loving vs. Virginia (a landmark interracial marriage case), describes marriage as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

However, you do give my answer to Klep: the inequalities being fought against today are not as pressing as those of yesteryear. The reason I think we should work via the slow push of federalism is precisely because we CAN afford to wait. People's lives aren't being ruined by lack of marriage the way they were by segregation. The heartbreak and frustration of not being able to marry your lover are wicked things but they are also smaller, less everyday tragedies. It's less urgent, therefore we should take the slower, less painful method. If everyone was all for it the case would be different but if we have to override the will of the majority we should attempt to make itgo down easy.

I side with Saucy and Klep on this. I respect your opinion and the fact that you voice it, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

The closest I find for a latin name is Non Causa Pro Causa but I have turned up an amusing term: The Camel's Nose.

[nataz]

no, I suppose my basic point it

A) option # 3 above, I really don't care that much, especialy when put in perspective

B) You have two courses of action. 1, Get the courts to allow it, overturning public moral standards and "norms", or 2, wait for those norms to change on their own.

Option 1, although it has happend before, is extreamly dangerous. Over the past 100 years the judicial branch of the state has become much more powerful then it was ever intended. I laugh at everytime people call bush a power-monger, because they are often ignorent to how the goverment has really changed in this century.

This danger, when weighed against the actual harm being done, combined with a pretty clear trend twords more and more liberal younger generations anyways, leads me to a conclusion to just "wait it out".

You, me, whoever, can rant and rave about the system. I'm not asking you to do nothing, nor am I telling you what to think. I couldn't care less if gays marry, but there are deeper issues here then pride and fairly minimum loss of tax incentives.

***edit

btw, matt summed up quite nicely my thoughts in his last paragraph.
The point of King's quote and my response was not simply a blanket comparison, but an example that this situation is not unique to gays. It was again, to put this issue in perspective, and help support the claim of "take it slow".

[Klep]

However, you do give my answer to Klep: the inequalities being fought against today are not as pressing as those of yesteryear. The reason I think we should work via the slow push of federalism is precisely because we CAN afford to wait. People's lives aren't being ruined by lack of marriage the way they were by segregation. The heartbreak and frustration of not being able to marry your lover are wicked things but they are also smaller, less everyday tragedies. It's less urgent, therefore we should take the slower, less painful method. If everyone was all for it the case would be different but if we have to override the will of the majority we should attempt to make itgo down easy.

As has been mentioned, just because some inequality is less pressing doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it.  And I think there are a number of people who would disagree with your assessment that being unable to marry your partner creates only smaller tragedies.  Not being able to visit your lover in the hospital is a pretty big fucking deal, as is losing your place of residence under your partner's name if your partner dies in an accident and his/her parents decide you don't deserve it.  Being forced to testify against your partner is also pretty heinous.  Those aren't small tragedies.  Those are seriously horrible things that can happen to any gay couple right now because they cannot get married.  That is not alright, and very much worth fighting for now.

[Jacob Orlove]

B) You have two courses of action. 1, Get the courts to allow it, overturning public moral standards and "norms", or 2, wait for those norms to change on their own.

That's not true. The third option is to work to change those norms, by raising awareness, debating with those who disagree, and fighting the legal and legislative battles that need to be fought.

Saying that our only options are to sit back and have the courts fix the situation for us, or to do nothing and just wait for things to get better, is outrageous.

Edit (@pedophilia, etc): if you look at my original post, I specifically used the phrase "consenting adults". Frankly, I don't have a problem with polygamy, provided that it is voluntary, and that all involved are consenting adults. If that's how they want to live, let them. Like others have said, every other part of that ridiculous slippery slope crosses the threshold of consenting adulthood.

[Klep]

B) You have two courses of action. 1, Get the courts to allow it, overturning public moral standards and "norms", or 2, wait for those norms to change on their own.

Option 1, although it has happend before, is extreamly dangerous. Over the past 100 years the judicial branch of the state has become much more powerful then it was ever intended. I laugh at everytime people call bush a power-monger, because they are often ignorent to how the goverment has really changed in this century.

The Supreme Court established Judicial Review way back in 1803 in the case Marbury v. Madison.  By my count, that was 202 years ago, not within the last century.  In fact, many of the founding fathers were still alive then, and I'm sure they would have said something if they'd had an issue with that.  Option 1 has actually happened a number of times in history, and when it's been handled by the courts it in itself has caused few problems.  Legalizing interracial marriage did not cause significant new problems.  Nor did overturning Jim Crow laws.  Nor did overturning the Alien and Sedition acts.  The only case of Judicial Review  I can think of which caused any significant problems is Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in abortion clinic bombings.  Even still, I doubt the death toll from those bombings is as high as the death toll would have been if women had been forced to turn to back-ally abortionists.  The history of Judicial Review is very much one of peaceful acceptance.

This danger, when weighed against the actual harm being done, combined with a pretty clear trend twords more and more liberal younger generations anyways, leads me to a conclusion to just "wait it out".

Would you prefer we had "waited out" slavery?  Racial discrimination?  Gender discrimination? We don't "wait out" social injustice.  This country isn't about dealing with inequality when we feel like it.  It's about granting equality to everyone.

You, me, whoever, can rant and rave about the system. I'm not asking you to do nothing, nor am I telling you what to think. I couldn't care less if gays marry, but there are deeper issues here then pride and fairly minimum loss of tax incentives.

Yes, there are.  As I've mentioned, there's loss of spousal privelege, loss of hospital visitation rights,  loss of default inheritance.  Those are pretty big problems, and I for one won't just "wait" for society at large to decide to deal with them.

[Dr. Sylvan]

This danger, when weighed against the actual harm being done, combined with a pretty clear trend twords more and more liberal younger generations anyways, leads me to a conclusion to just "wait it out".

What if the sign that the society has waited long enough is that we are this close to achieving it? In 1960, would it be morally defensible to say "the younger white people don't support Jim Crow laws or segregation, just wait a few decades for them to be in power rather than trying to get change sooner"? I don't think so.

BTW, I too support polygamy (polyandry, polygyny, or polyeverybody). Consenting adults and all that. (There are enough people making the libertarian slam dunks around here that I don't even have to try. Yay!)

[Rico Suave]

Matt, I agree.  I never said that gay/lesbian couples couldn't adopt.  Tax breaks are made for people with any dependent.  This is, as you said, to help those people raise the child.  Gay/lesbian couples already can put dependents on their tax breaks, and there is no issue there.

The difference is in the rights of marriage, and that's because the government can immediately recognize that if it's two people of the same gender, it's not going to be the natural mother and faster raising that child.  This is not to say that gay/lesbian couples can't raise a child.  It's just obvious that a child in a gay/lesbian family is either adopted, artificially inseminated, or some other form of reproduction that differs from natural reproduction.

The government wants to promote the natural parents raising the child.  There is a clear difference.  One of the many purposes of marriage is essentially to create a family, so by sanctioning a marriage the government is promoting the concept of "2 people within our society come together, share an oath to each other, have a kid, create a family together."  From a government's standpoint, that is exactly what it wants people to do all the time.  In order to survive, this cannot stop.  

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth?  No.  But it does because the idea is a good one.

This also brings up the topic of heterosexual couples that cannot naturally reproduce, for whatever reasons.  To that - you have to answer other questions about the couples privacy, which is an entirely different topic altogether.

[Jacob Orlove]

Those "natural reproduction" arguments sound a whole lot like the "intelligent design" arguments that anti-evolutionists have switched to.

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth? No. But it does because the idea is a good one.

Why? Your entire post rests upon this assumption, but you do not make any arguments for it, other than the implication that everything else is "unnatural".

[Klep]

The government wants to promote the natural parents raising the child.

That's not clear at all.  Plenty of marriage rights have nothing to do with raising children, and plenty of people who do not have and do not want children have marriage rights.  I honestly cannot see how you can draw that conclusion.

 There is a clear difference.  One of the many purposes of marriage is essentially to create a family, so by sanctioning a marriage the government is promoting the concept of "2 people within our society come together, share an oath to each other, have a kid, create a family together."  From a government's standpoint, that is exactly what it wants people to do all the time.  In order to survive, this cannot stop.

If creating a family is only one of many purposes of marriage (and it isn't always. Marriages of political convenience have a long history), how can you definitively say what interest the state has in supporting it?

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth?  No.  But it does because the idea is a good one.

Why?  This statement is completely unsupported.

This also brings up the topic of heterosexual couples that cannot naturally reproduce, for whatever reasons.  To that - you have to answer other questions about the couples privacy, which is an entirely different topic altogether.

No, this is a very pertinent topic.  If the only reason the government grants marriage benefits to heterosexual couples is to encourage them to have children, then couples that can't or won't have children obviously don't deserve those benefits, regardless of the reason.

[Azhrei]

Equal protection under the law is equal protection under the law.

[Milton]

Do you have a "right" to marry?  Or is it a priveliege granted by the state assuming you meet reasonable qualifications?  

I cannot marry my sister.  Why?  If we both consent, why not?  I cannot marry my cousin.  Why?  I cannot take more than one wife legally, unless I file for divorce with the state.  

The state does determine who can and cannot qualify for marriage, and who qualifies for government benefit of marriage.  The state can require a marriage liscence, some require blood tests (I think), they require that someone who is liscenced by the state certify the marriage as being valid (judges, priests).  The state has the power to determine who is legally married and what qualifications must be met.

So, really, until the 14th amendment is changed to read "or sexual orientation" after the part about race the state can make the determination that same sex couples cannot marry.  They can do so for many resaons, but the overriding reason would be "the morals and values of the community", the same rationale the courts used when outlawing polygamy and bigomy, despite a 1st amendment free exercise challenge.

I have yet to have someone tell me how we can allow gay marriage but not allow polygamy or inscest.

[Saucemaster]

BTW, I too support polygamy (polyandry, polygyny, or polyeverybody). Consenting adults and all that. (There are enough people making the libertarian slam dunks around here that I don't even have to try. Yay!)

Did you just call me a libertarian?  Pistols at dawn, sir!

[Machinus]

[EDIT: It seems my post is significantly behind. The site was down for a while and I missed a few posts. I apologize for any redundant material.]

Before you read my post, please refer to my previous one in this thread. I am against any inequality in reference to any "rights" for gays, and I think it is unbeliveable that states have actually taken legal action against them.

Now, on with my post:

The idea of marriage/unions/life partners isn't regulated by the states, its the benefits that are reaped from the legal definition of marriage that are under control.

Those benefits include tax breaks, hospital visitation, a marriage certificate, etc. etc. Those items are not "rights", but privileges, handed out by the government as positive reinforcement for behavior that the government wants to promote (i.e., heterosexual marriages).

This seems really important to me. The fact is that marriage is NOT a right at all. Marriage itself is a meaningless term in the way that most people use it. The only aspect of the term that is significant is the legal one, and in fact that boils down to a financial incentive to get people to reproduce and pay more taxes. Holy shit! In simplified terms, a marriage contract is just a grant from the government to two human beings to make babies (also there are the traditional benefits afforded to married couples, but those seem arbitrary compared to the needs associated with raising kids).

I think gays should be allowed to do whatever they want in reference to any religious/spiritual institution, and call their relationships whatever they want. But consider this - if the majority of the population under any state or federal government does not want to pay for homosexuals to get married, then that is their democratic right. It is certainly wrong for homosexuals to be denied the right to "take the next step" or whatever other garbage you want to call it - but if you evaulate this process in the only meaningful terms - taxes - then in fact there is very little wrong here. However, Klep already noted that the socially "right" course of action should always take precedence over the economic one.

One solution to this is to provide these incentives to homosexual couples who want to raise kids, in addition to all the other rights granted to married couples.

However, this solution raises much deeper questions about the nature of humans and what we are capable of. Several people earlier in the thread raised the question of polygamy. Why is this wrong? If you can explain why homosexuality (an UNCOMMON deviation from the normal sexual and social behaviour from human beings, legal in about forty states) is acceptable, then why ISNT polygmay (another, more UNCOMMON deviation from the normal sexual and social behaviours of human beings, which you can do in Utah without prosecution). Rico Suave is right when he says that more serious changes will follow these issues - but who is capable of seeing through these problems, and understanding how to solve them? Clearly our ability to understand and judge is insufficient at this point in time.

I am reminded of something a poet once wrote to a young friend. This is one of the most profound opinions I have read on the subject of marriage.

But this is what young people are so often and so disastrously wrong in doing. They (who by their very nature are impatient) fling themselves at each other when love takes hold of them, they scatter themselves, just as they are, in all their messiness, disorder, bewilderment. . . : And what can happen then? What can life do with this heap of half-broken things that they call their communion and that they would like to call their happiness, if that were possible, and their future? And so each of them loses himself for the sake of the other person, and loses the other, and many others who still wanted to come. And loses the vast distances and possibilities, gives up the approaching and fleeing of gentle, prescient Things in exchange for an unfruitful confusion, out of which nothing more can come; nothing but a bit of disgust, disappointment, and poverty, and the escape into one of the many conventions that have been put up in great numbers like public shelters on this most dangerous road.

[Klep]

Do you have a "right" to marry?  Or is it a priveliege granted by the state assuming you meet reasonable qualifications?

Yes. It was established in the case RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA.

I cannot marry my sister. Why? If we both consent, why not? I cannot marry my cousin. Why? I cannot take more than one wife legally, unless I file for divorce with the state.

The state actually does have a legitimate interest in preventing incest, because it is proven to show birth defects.  As far as most of us are concerned, there is no reason why you should not be able to take more than 1 wife.

And therein lies the big problem.  The state getting involved in the marriage business creates a big mess.  It would be much cleaner if the state wasn't involved at all.

[Smmenen]

Do you have a "right" to marry?  Or is it a priveliege granted by the state assuming you meet reasonable qualifications?

Yes. It was established in the case RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA.

I cannot marry my sister. Why? If we both consent, why not? I cannot marry my cousin. Why? I cannot take more than one wife legally, unless I file for divorce with the state.

The state actually does have a legitimate interest in preventing incest, because it is proven to show birth defects.  As far as most of us are concerned, there is no reason why you should not be able to take more than 1 wife.

And therein lies the big problem.  The state getting involved in the marriage business creates a big mess.  It would be much cleaner if the state wasn't involved at all.

As a Law student, I alluded to it in my first post.  I took Family Law last semester.

The right to marry was first established FULLY in a case called Zablocki.  But the doctrinal groundwork was laid in Loving v. Virginia.  

Being a fundamental right doesn't mean it can't ever be abridged.  The test is that a law which directly and substantially intereferes with the right to marry must be subject to strict scrutiny.  That means it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

If you want more, I can pull up my notes instead of telling you this from memory.  I can even give you case citations or pull up the cases entirely.

[Rico Suave]

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth?  No.  But it does because the idea is a good one.

Why?  This statement is completely unsupported.

Laws prevent many odd methods of reproduction.  

Like Milton said, the government does not want us reproducing with children and blood relatives.  

The next best thing to having a law that denies odd methods of reproduction is the opposite - laws that help normal methods of reproduction (not at the exclusion of other things such as adoption), or in other words what our society finds normal.  Male-female reproduction seems to be pretty normal it seems, whereas at least as far as the vote goes, society doesn't feel the same way regarding same-sex marriages.

Other places have same-sex marriages.  Other governments have done work to make same-sex marriages legal.  No, they're not monsters, freaks, and just crazy Dutch people.  They're normal people, but they just voted differently.  

Until it's legal in America, the society is going to dictate what is and what is not an acceptable method of reproducing through their vote.  Wrong?  Maybe.  It is, however, the popular opinion that same-sex marriages should not be recognized.  It becomes difficult to argue against that.  At least we voted in politicians who did something about slavery, women's rights, and other equality issues.  Will we do the same for sexual preference?  There is far less incentive there for any politician to support the idea, but maybe that is a clue.

[Klep]

A few relevant links

http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5GB4B2
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B109/2/339
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;109/2/341.pdf

I apologize, earlier I claimed the study was done by the AMA, it was actually done by the AAP.  It's been a while, and I mixed my acronyms.

[Smmenen]

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth?  No.  But it does because the idea is a good one.

Why?  This statement is completely unsupported.

Laws prevent many odd methods of reproduction.  

Like Milton said, the government does not want us reproducing with children and blood relatives.  

The next best thing to having a law that denies odd methods of reproduction is the opposite - laws that help normal methods of reproduction (not at the exclusion of other things such as adoption), or in other words what our society finds normal.  Male-female reproduction seems to be pretty normal it seems, whereas at least as far as the vote goes, society doesn't feel the same way regarding same-sex marriages.

Other places have same-sex marriages.  Other governments have done work to make same-sex marriages legal.  No, they're not monsters, freaks, and just crazy Dutch people.  They're normal people, but they just voted differently.  

Until it's legal in America, the society is going to dictate what is and what is not an acceptable method of reproducing through their vote.  Wrong?  Maybe.  It is, however, the popular opinion that same-sex marriages should not be recognized.  It becomes difficult to argue against that.  At least we voted in politicians who did something about slavery, women's rights, and other equality issues.  Will we do the same for sexual preference?  There is far less incentive there for any politician to support the idea, but maybe that is a clue.

I'm sorry, but I just can't handle the implied assertion (repeated by you in this thread) that the government needs to support marriage or else humans won't reproduce appropriately.

Humans are animals with a POWERFUL sex drive.  NOTHING can stop us from reproducing.  Protecting marriage is NOT needed to protect procreation.   The Law doesn't have to provide proper incentives to marry  to protect procreation anymore than it does to make us eat, shit, or sleep.

The contrary argument is just horse shit, pure and simple.

Incidentally, there is some interesting law review pieces suggesting that incest does not produce screwed up children or genetic deformities unless there is repeated incest.  But that's an entirely different topic which I can direct you to the literature if you are interested.

[Klep]

Does the government HAVE to promote natural birth?  No.  But it does because the idea is a good one.

Why?  This statement is completely unsupported.

Laws prevent many odd methods of reproduction.  

Such as?  The only one I can think of is full-on cloning.

Until it's legal in America, the society is going to dictate what is and what is not an acceptable method of reproducing through their vote.  Wrong?  Maybe.  It is, however, the popular opinion that same-sex marriages should not be recognized.  It becomes difficult to argue against that.  At least we voted in politicians who did something about slavery, women's rights, and other equality issues.  Will we do the same for sexual preference?  There is far less incentive there for any politician to support the idea, but maybe that is a clue.

Actually, it's really easy to argue against public opinion when public opinion is wrong.  Segregation and Slavery weren't determined by a vote.  Nor was interracial marriage.  All of these things happened years before the public was ready to accept them, but they were done because they were the right thing to do.  Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves was actually considered a very politically damaging move.

[Smmenen]

The Emancipation proclomation was politically dangerous even though it had absolutely NO effect.  No northern states had Slaves and all the slave holding states had declared secession.

[Rico Suave]

I'm sorry, but I just can't handle the implied assertion (repeated by you in this thread) that the government needs to support marriage or else humans won't reproduce appropriately.

Humans are animals with a POWERFUL sex drive. NOTHING can stop us from reproducing. Protecting marriage is NOT needed to protect procreation. The Law doesn't have to provide proper incentives to marry to protect procreation anymore than it does to make us eat, shit, or sleep.

The contrary argument is just horse shit, pure and simple.

I never said it needed to support procreation, since that is just one factor in a marriage.  In fact, I explicitly said it didn't need to support natural child-birthing, but it does anyway.

In many ways, the government is not getting people to reproduce so much as helping to raise a children in a healthy environment for the child.  Certain environments are better than others, for instance I'd rather see gay/lesbian couples adopt children than see those children get lost in some worse system.  

The point I'm trying to make is that Americans are very interested in the conditions which a child grows up in the home and the surroundings of it, which should be evidenced enough by all the child protection laws.  Financial incentives are there to support what the government feels are factors that lead to a healthy environment for the children.  This is how it can shape our families socially.

I apologize if you feel this is horse shit.

[nataz]

Klep, the more this convo goes on, the more I wonder if you really do understand the history behind the decisions that you and I cited.

do you truely approve of what those judges did in theory, as opposed to practice?

I am well aware of the ideas behind our judical system, and its history in dabbling in making laws, but does that make it a good thing? The courts are the most dangerous institutions in our state system. Not dangerous because they are evil, or wrong, but dangerous because there is very little limiting their power. In many cases they are neither elected, nor serve set terms, dosn't that worry you? Or are you of the opinion that they know whats best, and therefor should be pushed further down this path?

If it helps, imagine a Judge supporting something that you think is absolutely wrong, as opposed to fairly black and white (to you) issues like slavery, segragation, etc, then let me know how you feel.
 
on the issue of "waiting"

Slavery > then Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage = host of other problems

If I can wait on tax reform, health care, the AIDs epidemic, then I can wait on gay marriage.

Going out and protesting won't change peoples minds. Rosie standing on the steps on SF didn't move me to tears. People waving signs and screaming won't do it either.

Having some of my friends come out of the closet, and then learning to accept them for who they were, now that changed me.

Learning to accept people for who they are is what will change society. First you have to get America to accept gays in general, after that, Marriage won't be an issue. My friends didn't need the state to tell them that they were married, nor did they listen to anyone but each other when they were able to adopt. Thats the attitude that will change America, real people living their own quiet normal lives.

[Matt]

They're normal people, but they just voted differently.

Until it's legal in America, the society is going to dictate what is and what is not an acceptable method of reproducing through their vote.

This reminds me of a problem I have with the language being used in other, world-politics today. When people talk of the US spreading democracy, it gives a false notion that democracy is a good thing. It isn't. A democracy is mob rule. The true test of success in our middle-east nation-building is not the purple-fingered vote but whether the fledgling democracy safeguards the rights of those not in power.

The same applies to gay marriage. The US is special in history not because it allows majority rule - many nations throughout history have done this, from antiquity forward - but because it protects minority rights. Any appeals to the "will of the people" are inherently fallacious when discussing whether to extend marriage rights to gays. The popularity of a right should (and usually does) have no bearing on its existence or defense.

[Milton]

The Emancipation proclomation was politically dangerous even though it had absolutely NO effect. No northern states had Slaves and all the slave holding states had declared secession.

If my memory serves me correctly the Emancipation Proclomation didn't effect slaves held in Northern states, such as Maryland or Kentucky, only slaves held in Southern states.  It was an attempt to create an uprising in the South and show good faith to abolitionists in the North.  And to rally the troops, unite the nation and reminad everyone what the war was about.

But, that has nothing to do with gay marriage.  

To simply address the legal aspects of gay marriage can lead one in a direction of ignoring the cultural aspects.  The fact is most married people I know (myself included) take their marriages very seriously.  They see marriage defined in the traditional sense, that being a monogomous and serious relationship between a man and a woman.  Marriage qualifies a man as a husband and a woman as a wife.  Marriage is an institution of tradition, custom, culture and values.  I know it's easy to say that only the stupid Republican right wing idiots justify values with the Bible, but I was married in a church by a pastor.  I don't know many people who aren't married in a religous setting.

So, most people take marriage seriously.  Understand that.  Understand that if you want to change a serious tradition, an institution that has been a standard of our American culture since it's existence, then you are going to ruffle a few feathers.  

Simply put, most people don't like their customs, traditions and values redefined for them.  Not by courts.  Not by activist groups.  Not by legislators.  Most good people who don't approve of gay marriage (good people, chariatable people, people of faith and devotion) don't like being told that if they disagree with same sex marriage that they are idiots or bigots.  Most people don't like being insulted, or having their values insulted.

[Klep]

Klep, the more this convo goes on, the more I wonder if you really do understand the history behind the decisions that you and I cited.

do you truely approve of what those judges did in theory, as opposed to practice?

Absolutely, that's their job.  I would be far more concerned if they were too timid to strike down laws that were unjust.

I am well aware of the ideas behind our judical system, and its history in dabbling in making laws, but does that make it a good thing? The courts are the most dangerous institutions in our state system. Not dangerous because they are evil, or wrong, but dangerous because there is very little limiting their power. In many cases they are neither elected, nor serve set terms, dosn't that worry you? Or are you of the opinion that they know whats best, and therefor should be pushed further down this path?

They are appointed for life, yes, but they are also able to be impeached by Congress, and they are free to revisit past issues any time a new case is brought before them.

If it helps, imagine a Judge supporting something that you think is absolutely wrong, as opposed to fairly black and white (to you) issues like slavery, segragation, etc, then let me know how you feel.

Actually I feel rather strongly that Justice Scalia has violated his oath multiple times and needs to be impeached.  Unfortunately this country is currently swinging rather far to the right, and I doubt there will be any move on that front soon.  I am comforted, however, by the fact that he will probably be dead or retired relatively soon.  In addition, he is just 1 of 9 justices on the court.  Furthermore, I am in general more willing to trust a group of men and women who have actually studied the Constitution to  determine what is and is not Constitutional than the public at large, precisely because of all the times society at large has been wrong.
 

If I can wait on tax reform, health care, the AIDs epidemic, then I can wait on gay marriage.

Well good for you.  I have a number of gay friends who feel quite strongly otherwise.

[Dr. Sylvan]

To simply address the legal aspects of gay marriage can lead one in a direction of ignoring the cultural aspects.  The fact is most married people I know (myself included) take their marriages very seriously.  They see marriage defined in the traditional sense, that being a monogomous and serious relationship between a man and a woman.  Marriage qualifies a man as a husband and a woman as a wife.  Marriage is an institution of tradition, custom, culture and values.  I know it's easy to say that only the stupid Republican right wing idiots justify values with the Bible, but I was married in a church by a pastor.  I don't know many people who aren't married in a religous setting.

So, most people take marriage seriously.  Understand that.  Understand that if you want to change a serious tradition, an institution that has been a standard of our American culture since it's existence, then you are going to ruffle a few feathers.

I'm fine with ruffling their feathers, and I know that's how they see it. That doesn't make it right to deny equality before the law to anyone. They can take their marriage as seriously as they want, and that's fine. As long as they don't try to infringe on someone else's freedom to do the same.

Simply put, most people don't like their customs, traditions and values redefined for them.  Not by courts.  Not by activist groups.  Not by legislators.  Most good people who don't approve of gay marriage (good people, chariatable people, people of faith and devotion) don't like being told that if they disagree with same sex marriage that they are idiots or bigots.  Most people don't like being insulted, or having their values insulted.

I'm gonna dial up my rhetoric from the usual for a second and say that I could hardly care less about how they feel about it. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to limit the liberty of someone else, and in this case the burden is not met---statements that people traditionally believe a certain way are not a reason for that belief to be supported in the law. They are at best a reason to examine changes more closely, not to halt change altogether.

The point I'm trying to make is that Americans are very interested in the conditions which a child grows up in the home and the surroundings of it, which should be evidenced enough by all the child protection laws. Financial incentives are there to support what the government feels are factors that lead to a healthy environment for the children. This is how it can shape our families socially.

Again, feelings do not constitute a solid foundation for public policy. If there were some objective evidence showing that kids raised by gay people turn out significantly more messed-up, there might be some ground to stand on. I think Klep's links shed ample light on that. Klep already dealt with your popularity argument, too, so I'll skip that.

@nataz: Isn't there significant gray area between "judicial legislation" and plain old judicial review striking down laws that are unconstitutional? I think the latter is actually a pretty indisputably good idea.

[Saucemaster]

Simply put, most people don't like their customs, traditions and values redefined for them.  Not by courts.  Not by activist groups.  Not by legislators.  Most good people who don't approve of gay marriage (good people, chariatable people, people of faith and devotion) don't like being told that if they disagree with same sex marriage that they are idiots or bigots.  Most people don't like being insulted, or having their values insulted.

And some people don't like seeing their friends, their loved ones, hell just any other American have their "value" and worth to the society determined for them on the basis of their sexual preference.  My father is a Christian minister.  He abhors the idea of gay marriage.  He supports the FMA, in fact.  He's a good person, he's a charitable person, and he's a person of faith and devotion.  And you're right, he doesn't like being told that he's a bigot.

But you know what?  He's going to have to learn to live with it.  Because he is a bigot.  I love him, but he is.

Bigotry is bigotry.  Put it in a pretty dress and call it "family values", or revere the loathing of those who are different as some glorious expression of "faith" all you want, but bullshit by any other name still smells like bullshit.

I know many people of all sexual persuasions who take their relationships quite seriously.  I know more than a few married couples who could stand to get a lot more serious about their marriages.  And none of that means anything, because you're wrong: the legal aspects are all that matter here.  Not because values are immaterial, but precisely because they mean TOO much.  I, with my value system, am offended by the values of those who seek to ban gay marriage.  And the reverse is obviously true as well.  The values issue is not something that the law is ever going to solve.  One day maybe we'll reach consensus.  Until then, the legal question and legal solution are all we can discuss.

[Hi-Val]

An interesting (libertarian) view I saw on it was thus: we are, as US citizens, allowed to engage in free enterprise and sign any contracts. A marriage license is a contract just as a will or prenup is; preventing a party from signing a contract because of their orientation/gender/skin color/whatever is infringing on our rights as citizens. Now I'm no law student and it was a while ago when I read it, but the argument made a lot of sense to me.