Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

Then we should make it relevant, as the absence of it's consideration treats a segment of society who are harmful to no one as second class citizens.

 

And which segment is that?

Edit: Are you countering my point, or springboarding off it?

 

Welcome aboard new guy!! We can use the help here of someone who is on the right side of history and who stands for civil rights and social justice. You picked a strange one (sec) to tangle with. I ran him off of the tread the other day by refuting some very ignorant claims that he made about hate crime laws. See you around!

 

Let me tell you something. I have changed my mind about ignoring you. When say really stupid **** like you did about hate crimes, I will be there like stink on ****. Which reminds me, you seem to have nothing further to say about hate crimes since I refuted your assertion that gays are given special consideration in those cases.

No, I will not ignore you and let you get away with that crap. What I also will not do is engage in petty pissing matches or engage in mud slinging ad-hominins. I will damned sure noy allow you to suck me into you pathetically juvenile game of trying to such me into discussing who and what I am.

I will not waste my time repeatedly asking you for clarification and documentation of the inane claims that you make.

For the record, you have repeatedly claimed-without any credible evidence -that gay folks get special treatment and have ignored evidence to the contrary. The same goes for your inane claim that homosexuality is a choice and that being gay is just about who you have sex with, while ignoring the fact that it is much more than that. You have been repeatedly been asked to clarify these assertions, present a logical argument with a premise that supports your conclusion, and to provide examples, and you have failed miserably to do so. You have had nothing but appeals to ignorance.

I will only deal in hard facts and engage in arguments-where an argument is actually being presented, or, when you post something flies in the face of logic, reason and knowledge you will hear from me

 

So you made the conscious decision to be heterosexual then based on your environment?
Think you could choose the other “path”?

 

First, let me establish I'm new here, and not certain of your political persuasion.
your reply (to which I've interjected myself ) gave me the impression you are against gay marriage,
and the following reply is based on that impression. If that is an incorrect assessment of your position, then disregard the following. Otherwise, do regard it.

You wrote:

Disallowing gays to marry the person they love and prefer to have sex with, which is to say, only allowing them to marry someone they do not love, sexually and emotionally, is unjust. If the law is about anything at all, should it not be about what is just? Are not the symbols of jurisprudence "the scales of justice"?

Now then, you may have a point regarding sex being irrelevant to marriage law, but not love. Love is relevant to marriage, so sayeth the Supreme Court,

In the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges Justice Kenney wrote, in closing,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf page 28:

 

Does not OBERGEFELL v. HODGES effectively, in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, effectively redefine marriage?

It looks to me that way.

 

Tish, Tish. It is all semantics . It is usually the anti gay marriage crowd that says that it redefined marriage. How dare they !! they will say. I say, if so, it's a minor tweak given the changes that marriage has gone through over the centuries. I prefer to look at it as just making it more inclusive, which can only strengthen the institution

 

Welcome to the site. For the record, I am a libertarian in my lean.

As a member of a poly marriage, consisting of 2 husbands and 2 wives, including myself, I think I woul be rather hypocritical to be against SSM.

By this I was saying that since the activity of sex is not a requirement of legal marriage, it makes no difference to legal marriage who you have sex with nor in what manner. It was a counter to this argument:

Because love is not a requirement of legal marriage, the fact of whether or not one loves the person they are getting legally married to is irrelavant. But with that, love is not prohibited. But I could marry someone I didn't love, at least not in a eros manner. There is nothing in the law to stop it.

A singular opinion, but that speaks more to the social marriage and maybe even the religious marriage, but even then it is not always required. Marriage has, always has had, and always will have, multiple meanings and significance, and even forms. Ultimately, I am pretty sure that the states are not actually required by anything to have a legal institution of marriage. However, in establishing it, it cannot be established by any given religious set of definitions, nor can it be limited with regards to the protected classes of the 14th. By US law, for a legal marriage to be formed, no couple is required to have sex, no couple is required to produce children, and no couple is required to have any kind of love between them. What is likely to happen is irrelavant to what is required.

 

In what manner? Based upon recent state laws which in turn redefined marriage when placing explicit restrictions that were not there before, even if presumed by some? Or based upon one of the several definitions that have existed throughout history?

 

I would presume that a ruling by the Supreme Court which results in the legalization of same sex couples would require redefining it?

Maybe not, since the constitution doesn't specify marriage is between man and a woman, (right?) so perhaps
Justice Kennedy arrived at that ruling via the 'penumbra rights' route? I haven't read the entire text of Kennedy's ruling.
I think I shall, now that we're on the subject. And, I'll read Robert's dissent, as well.

I'm no scholar, but I do support the ruling, noting that a majority of Americans support it, as well.

Wasn't the one big reason the founding fathers created the supreme court was to insure "equal justice for all"? So, inclusive in that "all" are gay people.

I gather you oppose it?

 

Did you even read post 59?

 

I missed it, but thank you, I'm reading it now.

 

I'll wait......

 

True. I wasn't saying that 'love' per se, was a requirement for a marriage license. As for myself, I lean 'libertarian/liberal' ( not an oxymoron ) so I, if I were a law maker creating policy, would have no problem legalizing your arrangement. Additionally, I believe society now accepts gay marriage, but I'm not certain they will accept polygamy, though I could be wrong. I don't see how the arguments made for gay marriage wouldn't apply to polygamy. The anti-types will give the slippery slope argument, and from gay marriage to polygamy, they will see that as a slide on the slope , but I don't. I have to draw the line at bestiality and pedophilia.

 

I can't help hoping this part of the exchange with sec, represents an effort at a pun. Love may not be relevant to SCOTUS ruling, but Loving certainly was! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. We all forget to chuckle in a thread like this one!

 

Since the base argument, beyond rights, of interracial, same sex, incest and poly marriage is consenting adults, by definition beastiality and pedophilia could never fall under that. Well, if we go full theoretical, and encounter alien species such as the Caitians (feline humanoids from Star Trek), we might have to go there, but for now, let's concentrate on what we currently. Not that I don't enjoy mind experiments, but they require their own threads..

As to accepting poly, it already is a growing lifestyle, where people are coming out into the open with it. And we're not talking the abusive crap that the FLDS or other religious groups are pulling. Just as homosexuality was not once accepted here, but now is, there is no reason to think that poly won't be as well. The key to legality will be working with the laws. Right now, on a legal logistical perspective, it will be immensely easier to make incest marriage legal than to make polgamy legal.

 

I am so embarrassed! As a father with 9 kids and 9 grandkids (including steps), I like to think that the Dad Jokes are strong in me, but I missed this one completely.

 

I assume that this question is now answered for you?

 

Good evening folks. I have been sitting it out, enjoying the banter. You guys are good. Until now, I have not felt that I had anything useful to contribute since you have it well covered and I have heard it and said it all before. I am indeed pleased that my OP which had gone dormant has sparked such lively discussion. It is an issue worth watching to see if SCOTUS takes it up, and if so , what they do with it.

For now, I remembered this piece- m y memory jogged by your reference to space aliens and plural marriage- that I wrote a while back that I thought is relevant. See what you think:

A Future History Lesson by The Progressive Patriot 5.7.14

While people continue to wring their hands and agonize over same sex marriage, I thought that I would offer some thoughts about what might lie ahead and what we might do to smooth the way. We must realize that down the road anything can happen. Any number of issues, foreseen or not can arise. I frequently rail against slippery slope predictions-such as plural marriage- that are injected into the same sex marriage debate. However, I do so not because I dismiss the possibility that a redefinition of marriage now, can lead to other changes later. Nor am I voicing a moral objection. Rather, I believe that we must deal with further change at the right time, learn from history, and be smarter going forward in order to avoid, or at least minimize the anguish that has plagued the gay marriage debate. I believe that we first have to deal with marriage equality in the here and now and new issues as they arise, spontaneously, in the future. Here is a time line of how it might all play out:

2015: While the debate over same sex marriage continues and more states allow it, intersexual people, those who are not clearly male or female are revealing themselves and begin to assert their rights. In a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, a couple applies for a marriage license. One of them, who wants to marry a male, has the biological and chromosomal characteristic of both a male and a female. This person has an androgynous name and appearance and refuses to identify as male or female. In fact many government forms that ask for “gender” have an option for “other” which this person chooses. The license request is rejected on the basis of marriage still being between a man and a woman.

2015: Later that year, SCOTUS has ruled that same sex people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as they are now deserving of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. States that refuse to legislate it are forced by federal courts to allow it. However, there is still the matter of intersexual people. Is he/she / whatever the same or opposite sex as his/her partner. Where do they fit in? Even now that same sex marriage is legal, with the court having found that discrimination against same sex couples is unconstitutional, intersexual people may fall between the cracks. They may not be exactly the same sex, nor the opposite sex of their partner. It’s a gray area, and many jurisdictions are unsure of how to deal with it. Furthermore, while gays and same sex marriage is generally accepted, inter-sexuals are regarded as freaks and are being denied other rights as well.

2020: The concept of polyamory-or group marriage, which has been around a while, is gaining in popularity. A heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license to marry another heterosexual couple. At the same time, another couple consisting of a man and a bi sexual woman seek to marry another bi sexual woman. Both applications are rejected and a long and arduous national debate and many court cases ensues. Meanwhile the issue concerning that intersexual situation rages on with some states refusing to be more inclusive.

2025: Inter-sexual people have become rather vocal and militant in demanding rights. More and more of them are choosing to live openly rather than in the closet- pretending to be exclusively male or female. Some, including gays, are accusing them of being bullies in demanding the same rights as “normal’ people, i.e. male or female. As a result of the relentless pushing of the intersexual agenda, some states are changing their laws to include them while others are seeking to ban marriages that include any person who is not clearly male or female. There are also a number of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts.

2030: Group marriage among heterosexuals gains more popular and acceptance, and some states, through legislation or court rulings, are beginning to allow it. Courts find that there is no rational basis for states to deny these marriages. However, all of the cases to date were brought by heterosexual couples who argued that large families of men and women are in keeping with tradition and create the most efficient and efficacious environment for children . They begin to win in court but ruling were narrowly tailored to only include married heterosexual couples or singles marrying other married heterosexual couples or singles. Gays and intersexual people are left out in the cold.
Almost immediately, gay couples are taking notice. They want “equality” –the ability to marry other gay couples and gay singles. More years of debate and legal maneuvering ensue. Rulings go constantly against gay couples. The basis for these rulings is concern for children. While it has been established by this time that gay parenting by a couple does not harm children, studies have emerged-sponsored by the Family Research Council which now supports heterosexual group marriage- that show that a child’s exposure to more than two gay parent figures at a time is in fact harmful, and that is the basis for opposing group marriage for gays. Meanwhile the issue of intersexual people is still unresolved.

2035: The SCOTUS finally decides that marriage is between any two consenting adults solving the problem of what to do about intersexual people. However, group marriage involving gay married couples still is a divisive issue. Furthermore, groups of people-married and single- of different gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are seeking the right to marry and further complicating the issue.

2040: SCOTUS determines that marriage is a universal natural right and that everyone –including intersexuals haves the right to marry as many people as they wish. There is no rational basis or compelling government reason for restricting marriage at all.
Could the road to 2040 have been less arduous? It would have helped if the issue of same sex marriage as it is before us today was resolved sooner, before other alternative lifestyles came to the fore. Even now, the waters are being muddied by those who bring up plural marriage as an invented issue. It can only get worse if it becomes a real issue before the current debate is laid to rest. I will add, that to push the envelope on issues before their time serves no one’s interest, but we must be prepared to address them at the appropriate time in history and cultural evolution. And in dealing with those future issues, it is important that we build on the lessons that were hopefully learned from the earlier matters. However, that will only happen if we can get over the moronic, puritanical and ridged positions that we hold and think more about what actually makes sense and what’s important and relevant in the current cultural and legal environment.

2045: All is well as far as the issue of marriage and who is allowed to marry who goes. The angst of the culture wars is a fading memory. Marital bliss for all. But wait! Farmer Brown in Montana wants to marry his flock of sheep. That same year, space aliens who have been living among us for centuries reveal themselves to us. Young people are fascinated by them and “hooking up” and marrying them becomes a fast moving fad. However, marriage is only for and among humans. The fight begins anew. Pat Robertson literally turns in his grave and Michelle Bachman, now 92, comes out of retirement and teams up with Rick Perry 95 and Rick Santorum 93, to start a clinic to cure people of wanting to have sex with aliens, legal or other wise. At the same time, congressional Republicans introduce a constitutional amendment against (space) alien marriage and adopt a party platform to encourage them to self deport. Pope Francis II says “Maybe civil unions”

2048- Republican Presidential candidate Senator William Paul, son of former Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, stated in a speech today that "If not for Republican and conservative support for gay rights, Democrats and liberals would have prevented gay couples from enjoying full rights and benefits of marriage." Waite! What!!
THE TIME TO GET OVER IT IS NOW

 

Very good and entertaining read. I liked this.

 

My view has always been consistent. With respect to the equal protection arguments comparing either Loving or Obergefell to any potential SCOTUS case down the road on multiparty marriage is futile. Its advocates legal brief pretty much writes itself based on precedent, but whether we apply a rational basis or compelling interest standard, we need to see the state's interest defined and crystalized in a couple of good legal briefs to see how it will measure up with the rather legally pathetic cases Loving and Obergefell were able to muster.

I can't say what my own opinion will be about multi-party marriage, let alone what my view of the constitutional issues because the arguments are so arcane and old. The state interest is based on cultural anecdotal experience and fears from Utah in the 1960's and 70's, hypothetical extrapolation of old genetics studies, and family law principles that have not seen a creative look in decades. My bias, and my inclination, is to give this a go and legalize this, in a few states at least, based on the same desire to see adults prosper under the family structure that that they aspire towards.

But I honestly cannot know whether I can support this extension of legal marriage until I at least read a few legal briefs from states who oppose it based on twenty-first century American culture, and twenty first century science and twenty first century law. We can't possibly know what's myth from what is real in multi-party marriage if we are defining its risks from cultural experiences before the first phase of women's liberation was finished, before the internet made communication and information omni-present in every village and knook and cranny of America, and before our understanding of human genetics was out of diapers.

I suspect states that are scared by the ramifications on family court, will stay scared, until a couple are forced to come up with answers, rather than brick walls by a court or two. But its not a cop-out to say multi-party marriage is a very different legal and cultural animal than same sex or interracial marriage. Its 100% true.​

 

Nicely written, and some decent logic. I do see a couple of either premise flaws, or logical misteps, but some of that does come from being written about a year before the final ruling by SCOTUS

The one problem with this thought is that there is no right time per se. It is a highly subjective. We can only see when the right time occured due to when the change was made. There have been previous challanges to the SSM bans, implicit or explicit. But it wasn't obergefell v. hodges that it was finally aligned with the constitution. So it was the mid 2010's that was the right time. But the question then arises. Should those other challanges not have been made?

Sorta pegged that one with regards to Davis didn't you?

This is where I feel one of your premise failures came into play. Again, I do realize that this was prior to the actual ruling. However, while I do not fault you for keeping this in consideration, it seems to me that you failed to account for the possibility that gender is eliminated as a consideration at all in legal marriage, thus rendering the worry about intersexed moot. Hindsight being what it is, I think I could have rolled with this more, had you raised that possibility, but then declared that you were going to continue with the definitive gender issue since such a narative would have longer reaching implications.

Education time, being an educator in the kink and poly communities. Polyamory is not group marriage. While indeed polygamy (group marriage) does fall under polyamory, it's a matter of all polygamy is polyamory but not all polyamory is polygamy. And that's actually important. Again, I am taking the time of the writing into account, and you may well know better by now, but it doesn't mean others do, so I have to note this. To further clairify on the terms, polygamy is multiple spouses, and there is no limit to how many of either gender (assuming such definitives) are in the marriage. WHat most people mistake as polygamy, one husband with multiple wives, is actually polygyny. Very understandable how the confusion occurs. The opposite is polyandry, one wife, multiple husbands. It is still practiced in the world today, although it has never been wide spread before. Here is a video about a society where polyandry is a way of life.:


I do suspect that we will be seeing more of these marriages in the future, legally recognized or not.

This is one of the logical errors I found. Once the ruling was in to allow marriages regardless of gender (even with the assumption of definitive gender), sexuality was never a part of legal marriage requirements. Homosexual men and women have been entering into OSM for the longest time, and there has never been a call or law that required that sexuality be determined prior to issueing a licenses/certificate. So while you could still run with the intersex argument, the straight/gay argument is already out the window with the predicted approval of SSM.

When working through this thought expriement, did you account for this ruling would then also allow closely related people (by blood or legally) to also obtain a legal marriage?

Overall, very well thought out. And yes, should we ever encounter other sentient life of human or better intelligence, then this fight will start over.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you expand on it some more?

​

Most polys agree with you. We recognize that the law would have to be changed in many other area before we can have legally recognized poly marriages. Furthermore, any such restriction of number of participants is indeed way different than aspects of the individuals involved. It is one of the reasons why incest marriage would be legally logistically easier to make legal than polygamy would.

 

only if one is bi do they have a choice between genders, everyone else is only sexually attracted to one gender or the other

I do get why that is hard for bi people to understand

why would one want to allow a group to be discriminated against by employers, doctors, stores, ect.... based on who they are married too?