SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Our government has a clearly stated requirement to treat us equally. THAT is the "right" in question. While the SCOTUS has stated that marriage IS a right, the issue before the court is being argued as a 14th amendment case of equal treatment. States must treat citizens equally, regardless of whether what is being offered is a right.

The arguments before the court aren't going to have anything to do with what would happen outside of our government. Religious marriage won't be affected, for example. This is a case of how our government must treat citizens.

 

This is the "we discriminated before, so we get to discriminate forever" argument.

People made this argument in favor of slavery, against women voting, against equality in public accommodation (such as "lunch counter" cases), etc.

It is a loser argument and always has been.

If you want to discriminate, you have to actually come up with a justification for doing so. And, the justification has to pass court review - which is what the SCOTUS is evaluating today concerning same sex marriage.

 

If government must treat citizens equally, then it must make heterosexual marriage equally available to all, which it does. If you're saying the government must endorse same sex relationships, then you are taking a particular group and trying to treat them special while excluding others..

It's not discrimination when they are simply choosing not to enter into marriage.

The loser argument is equating sexual orientation to race, and lack of state-sanctioned marriage to slavery. It's absurd.

If you want special recognition and incentives from the state, then you need to make a case for the public benefit at the state level.

 

That is simply absurd. I see no indication that ANY court accepts your idea. Also, I've never heard of any lawyer bothering to suggest it.

Beyond that, the special treatment request is coming from YOU, not proponents of marriage equality.

 

True.

But, let's remember that same sex couples ARE choosing marriage.

They are being married in many states, including my own where we voted to end this discrimination against same sex couples.

And, let's remember that there are religious denominations that are consecrating these marriages before God.

And, no special recognition or incentives from the state are being requested - only equality.

 

If you are saying that government must allow opposite sex marriage while not allowing same sex marriage, then you are taking a particular group and trying to treat them special. That is discrimination. If, when you say excluding “others” you are alluding to polygamy or some other variation on the theme of marriage, those people are free to petition the government for that right, and the government will then have to come up with -at minimum - rational basis for excluding them. That’s how it works
.

.

Of course its not. Who is choosing not to enter marriage?

The looser argument is claiming that gay rights advocates are equating sexual orientation to race, and lack of state-sanctioned marriage to slavery.

I find it disheartening that whenever they gay rights struggle is referred to as a civil rights issue, there are always people who are ready to howl about how it’s not “civil rights” because being gay is not a skin color. The fact is, no one ever said that it was. This tactic is used for no other reason than to disparage the gay cause and accuse gay advocates of diminishing the suffering of African Americans when nothing can be further from the truth.

The fact is that there are those who use black civil rights to claim the moral high ground by saying that “I’m not a bigot”… “I support civil rights” and all the while continue to disparage gays using the excuse that it’s not “civil rights” and that the discrimination that gays have suffered cannot be compared. The fact is that it is pointless to try to measure the relative suffering of one group over that of another and that no group has an exclusive right to claim civil rights, including the group who may have suffered the most.

No, gay is not a skin color. But civil rights is not exclusively about skin color. It is about people who have been discriminated against, regardless of the skin that they are in.

The burden of proof is on those who seek to deny rights of others. Not those who are denied those rights. Although a case can be made for the “public benefit” the issue is really the harm that is caused to gay people when their rights are violated and the lack of a compelling justification for doing so.

 

I think the only point on which we disagree there is that I think that question should be answered at the state level and that answering this case at the federal level creates other, more systemic problems.

But look at what you wrote yourself: "These people are being denied the legal right to marry the [condition], [condition], [condition]... individual of their choice." The opposite-sex condition is one that some states wish to lift, others do not, and it should be left at that.

No, it isn't. Not one of these analogies has added any clarity to the discussion. Please stop.

OK if we're not playing word games, then say "entitlements" when you're talking about entitlements. And entitlements are not a "right."

No! The government does not "grant" rights! The government grants entitlements. I'll say it again: the right to marry exists apart from government. And from that perspective, the government does NOT grant those entitlements to "most other people." It grants them to relationships that meet the state's criteria of a legal marriage. Some opposite-sex couples marry each other without applying for a state license; they are exercising their right to marry, but they also do not receive the entitlements of legal marriage. It's their choice.

You are again inserting "rights" where you are talking about entitlements. If you were refusing me that right, then there would be something in the penal code that describes the punishment for my behavior. But it isn't there.

The entitlements in question are administered at the state level and should be constrained by the state law. But now you're asking the Supreme Court to overrule state law, except for some of the other constraints that you think are okay (at least for now).

I'm not appealing to tradition to defend the state law, I'm appealing to the consistency of cultures, time periods, and religions to show that the concept of opposite-sex marriage is not some Roman Catholic or American or 20th-century truth. It is the relationship that U.S. states wanted to recognize because recognizing that relationship served states' interests. If a state wants to expand the legal definition of marriage it can, but it should not be forced to.

"Stupid defense," "weasel defense;" is it fair for me to use equally disparaging terms to describe your close-minded approach to discussing this topic?

Loving was about some states exercising racial discrimination and penalizing people for interracial marriage. Today's case is about some people wanting to force all states to sanction and incentivize same sex relationships.

No, I'm not going to fall into the trap of discussing your falsely-framed argument. The argument presented to the Supreme Court is not as you've summarized it. I can throw it back at you: have you made an effort to give a compelling reason why all states should be forced to incentivize same sex relationships?

 

Yeah? What group is that? The group that constitutes all males and females? Sexual orientation is a matter of attraction, which is a matter of taste. Are you now saying that the government is obligated to limit its laws to those that treat all personal tastes equally? Ridiculous.

Read the post I was responding to, that's exactly what's going on.

The assumption you're making is that someone who does not support same sex marriage is automatically "disparaging gays." It's a false assumption. There are some gays who do not support same sex marriage. And there are plenty of straights who are quite empathetic and respectful of the gay struggle, yet because they do not specifically support SSM they are disparaged as "bigots" and "homophobes."

But the rights for blacks was about discrimination against people irrespective of their behavior. The current fight for so-called "gay rights" is about granting them benefits because of their behavior. The difference is profound and gets to the heart of what kind of discrimination is acceptable and what kind isn't.

 

Really? Take a closer look at the Sixth Circuit's ruling: "[The love-and-commitment definition of marriage] fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point."

Last I checked, the Sixth Circuit counted as a court, whether or not you agree with its opinion.

No, they are choosing a relationship that (presumably) does not meet the legal definition of marriage for that state. And it's their right to do so.

Good for you, and good for them! Now what does your state's decision have to do with another's? What does a religious organization's practice have to do with a state's law?

Equality for people whose relationships were previously ignored by the state and are now subsidized with public resources... meaning incentives. Yet the state continues to ignore many other relationships. As long as it's administered by the states, they can add or remove whatever conditions they want. But as soon as you go to the 14th Amendment to say all states must stop bounding marriage this way, then you limit their authority to bound it in other ways.

 

I understand, I just don't agree. I would most emphatically not wish to face MY marriage being arbitrarily disallowed if my work should take me to some intolerant state. I am MARRIED, dammit. This is basic.

Sigh. The goal is to keep the list of conditions both short and reasonable. Just like we keep the conditions for voting short and reasonable. What you are defending is adding an unnecessary and quite possibly unconstitutional condition, but you are NOT providing any reason for doing so.

OK, let's make a deal. The right to marry necessarily implies marrying the partner of your choice. Saying that being permitted to marry someone you would NOT choose doesn't reduce your rights is simply stupid. If you think people marry kind of at random, please stop.

The SCOTUS called marriage a fundamental right. It IS a fundamental right. So stop playing word games already.

This sort of deliberate dishonesty is why I wish to stop playing word games.

What is being discussed here is access to the legal condition of marriage. When I speak of marriage, I am speaking of all of the laws, rules, regulations, and precedents which together define legal marriage. You are playing games again.

What's being fought for here is the right to marry, on the part of a minority whose right has been denied.

We are talking about the right to legal marriage. YOU keep playing word games. Please stop.

The RIGHT to marry is fundamental. The Court has said so. The problem is, that right is being denied to a minority despite no compelling reason for denial every having been presented by anybody.

Yes, this is the "this is the way it has always been most commonly done" tactic. The issue here is, is that the best way? You keep saying "your marriage should arbitrarily be granted or withheld as you move across state lines." But you never explain WHY any marriage should be in such jeopardy. Yes, I understand that HOW a decision is made, and WHO makes the decision, is important. But you are very carefully evading the merits of the decision itself. It's one thing to argue that states can wreck peoples' marriages (though I disagree) and another to simply pretend this is a good idea.

If my arguments are stupid or try to misrepresent, yes, it's fair. But it IS stupid to claim that if you are forced either to remain single or marry someone you don't like, you have the same right to marriage as someone who marries the one they love. And it IS weaseling to say that if states can vary in minor cosmetic ways, this somehow magically gives them the authority to deny fundamental rights. The Loving case should have illustrated that for you.

And the Loving case forced all states to sanction inter-racial marriages - which prior to Loving met your pet wonderfulness of being permitted in some states but not in others. Weren't things just ducky back then?

Because marriage is a fundamental right. Period. The argument has been framed the way I've been telling you in dozens of courts and the district and circuit levels. The courts have asked, repeatedly, WHY the State should deny this right. They have said, over and over, that here is something clearly of benefit if it's allowed while causing no harm, and clearly harmful if denied, while conferring no benefits. And the lawyers for the states haven't been able to say "oh no no no, you're framing wrong, people who want rights have to provide a compelling case for why the STATE benefits." Sorry, doesn't work that way.

(I'm not sure what you mean by "incentivize" here. Are you saying that denying the right to marry is actually genuinely, denying benefits? Imagine that! So there ARE incentives to marry. If there were not, nobody would be demanding that this right be restored.)

 

Having an answer about plural marriage is irrelevant. There is no justification for arguing plural marriage in the context of a question concerning the marriage of two individuals.

Same sex marriage absolutely does meet the definition for the state. My state examined our laws to see what might possibly have to be rethought or modified. We found that essentially zero lines of law (definition) needed to be changed, since we already made changes to marriage related to equality of women. For example, "man" and "wife" had already been replaced by "spouse".

The constitution says that my state's decision is to be respected by all other states.

The religious connection was stated to point out that same sex marriage is gaining increased reception from religious denominations as well as the dramatic increase we see in the secular community.

Yes, states ARE limited in their right to make decisions. That is precisely what the 14th amendment was written to do. That isn't in question, is it?

 

That group is heterosexuals who are afforded special rights if they are allowed to marry when gays people cannot.

.

A matter of taste? What are you talking about? Is that just your new way of saying that it’s a choice?

The law must treat all people equally. It’s not about “taste” Redicuous

Only in the deep dark recesses of you own mind. I explained quite well why that is just bunk.

You can use whatever words you wish. Not supporting equality, is bigotry

Maybee. So what ? How many? There are self-loathing idiots wherever you go.

They are bigots, and hypocrites. They claim that they want equality so as to look like reasonable, compassionate people, but brush aside the reality of the harm that marriage inequality does .

And here is the crux of your problem. You see homosexuality as a behavior, meaning a choice. While gayness is not a race, it is an immutable characteristic and gay people do not choose to be gay anymore than a black person chooses to be black. This fight is very much about civil rights.

You can’t get past your ridiculous and prejudicial views and therefor this is just a hopeless case. We’re done here

 

The ass hat of the day award goes to:

 

It's how constitutional law works. You must demonstrate an interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Thy don't need to demonstrate an interest in order to marry.

 

........

 

The law does promote a particular religious and moral view--the view marriage is between a man and a woman only. Native Americans and other societies throughout history, as well as various religions such as Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, and the Presbyterian Church USA all allow same-sex marriage and reject that particular view.

 

Now you're talking about the second argument before the court, which I haven't really discussed. I can see the court ruling one way on the first question and another way on the second.

Sigh is right. Retaining the opposite-sex condition of a legal marriage is one of the most reasonable conditions in the list, and as I've pointed out is a condition that has spanned time, culture, and religion. Calling it "unnecessary" is a subjective claim that, as I've said, needs to be argued at the state level.

But lots of people are denied the right to legally marry the partner of their choice, even in states that recognize same sex marriage. State-defined marriage will always exclude people who don't meet the criteria, it's the nature of having a legal boundary to the definition. It doesn't mean they are denied the right to marry.

Your entire argument here falls apart when you take government out of the picture. Let's pretend for a minute there was no legal definition of legal marriage in the U.S. If opposite-sex marriages were taking place and same-sex marriages were taking place, then everyone would be freely exercising their "fundamental right to marry." That is essentially what we have today. The hangup here is that in the real world, opposite-sex marriages are formally recognized by the state and subsidized/incentivized. But that formal recognition and subsidy is not a fundamental right. Expanding that formal recognition is at the state's discretion and is not a Constitutional requirement.

As I said, I haven't addressed question #2 and have said nothing about arbitrary granting/withholding marriage.

Fine, "stupid" is interpreting my perspective to suggest that anyone is forced to do anything they don't want to. Do you think people who prefer celibacy have the same right to marry as people who want a lifelong relationship with an opposite-sex partner? If they do, then so do people who prefer a same-sex partner. It's a matter of personal taste. People who prefer solitude over a partnered relationship exclude themselves from legal marriage just as people who prefer same-sex partners exclude themselves from legal marriage. They're still free to be with whomever they want.

Again you demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding of the Loving decision. That decision limited states' authority to discriminate marriages by race. How would a similar decision be applied to states today? What laws would they strike down? The law that says marriage is what it's always been in this state? Then by what authority does the state define or limit marriage at all? The question remains unanswered.

Then why are you afraid to let this play out at the state level?

No, I'm saying there is no "fundamental right" being denied, only incentives, which are not the same thing as fundamental rights.

 

Not at all, I do not see homosexuality as a choice. Unlike race or gender, though, homosexuality is completely personal and private until it's revealed. My point has nothing to do with choice or immutability, it has to do with the fact that what makes someone gay is that they are attracted to a certain gender. Attraction is about personal taste. It's inconceivable that our laws would take everyone's personal tastes into account.

Yep, and then there are smug idiots who like to hurl insults like "bigot" at people they disagree with. Good luck to you.

 

I suppose this is possible, but it seems impractical. Wasn't it the case in Loving that the couple went to where they could legally marry, and then returned? As I see it, marriage is not an event, it is a condition. If crossing state lines nullifies the condition, this sort of undermines the concept of a marriage. If it does not, we simply have "wedding mills" at the state lines of intolerant states.

You make two claims here - that same-sex marriage is unreasonable, and that states should make this decision. The first claim I admit I have problems with. Most of that short list are supported by compelling reasons - to avoid inbreeding, to avoid bigamy, to ensure informed consent. I'd be willing to accept "unrelated" for same-sex couples, even though of course inbreeding is not a threat, simply to keep all current marriage laws intact. But saying that irrelevant, non-problematic issues are nonetheless "reasonable" is a stretch. In my world, irrelevant and arbitrary are not synonyms for "reasonable".

Yes, I agree. The question is whether these denials are supported by compelling reasons. Age restrictions clear this barrier and are temporary anyway. Inbreeding can easily be argued as something to discourage. And so on. Saying "there are compelling reasons to prohibit marriage, and THEREFORE arbitrary irrelevancies are equally compelling", is pretty lame.

Ah, so we are back to word games again. You know perfectly well that the goal here is legal recognition, which brings with it the impact of over a thousand laws, precedents, regulations, and the like. The fundamental right the Court has spoken of, IS the condition of LEGAL marriage. Yes, I've read of cultures where marriage is nothing more than a matter of declaration an intent (along with perhaps some ceremony like jumping over a stick). But let's try to stick to the topic here.

These two questions aren't as distinct as you seem to wish. Now, if marriage were an event, pretending you're not addressing it would make sense. So let's try to get past this. I think having "wedding mills" at the borders of intolerant states is impractical if a state must recognize a marriage legal in another, and arbitrarily dissolving a marriage if it is not recognized wouldn't last a month.

Unless they are states forced by the Court to permit and perform marriages as protected nationally by the US Constitution, right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, there have been celibate marriages by mutual preference. Nobody seems opposed to these. There have also been quite a few marriages where separate careers basically mean the couple never see one another and are married pretty much for tax purposes. Again, no problem.

What I interpret you as saying here is "because some people who COULD marry if they wish, do not wish to do so, therefore some people who DO wish to marry should be denied this option." And I can't make much sense of that "logic". Marrying the partner of your choice should ALWAYS be an option, even if you choose never to exercise it. Prohibiting it (but only for a minority) is NOT legal equality for that minority.

I simply don't understand what you are trying to ask here. So OK, a decision might "limit states' authority to discriminate marriages by gender." This is nothing more than adding a characteristic on the basis of which states can not discriminate. And such a decision would strike down 29 (at last count) state laws and/or constitutional amendments. So what is the question you say is unanswered?

Because, once again, marriage is not an event, it is a condition. I know you are falling all over yourself trying to distinguish between getting married and being married. If there is no national-level regulation, and a same-sex married couple moves to Alabama, are you saying you're kewl with Alabama requiring the spouses to testify against one another in state courts, and refusing to allow them to file state taxes jointly, etc.? If I were required by state law to testify against my wife in court, I'd have no option but to serve time for contempt when I refused.

Ah, more word games. I see this as a matter of applying the 14th Amendment, requiring equal treatment under the law. I suppose you might regard being treated equally as an "incentive", but to me this is quite basic.

 

What!?? You speak with forked tongue and in doing so make no sense. Nothing to do with it being immutable ? Really? The courts see it differently. This "personal taste" crap is just an intellectually dishonest way of trying to justify discrimination, while avoiding the fact that homosexuality is much more than a "personal taste". You say that you don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, So why then should they not have rights like others like racial groups and women. ? You are lying out loud and don't even realize how obvious it is. So what if it is not obvious "until revealed" ? It is still about who and what people are . REAL PEOPLE who you lack any real respect or understanding for.

I don't call people who disagree with me bigots. I call bigots .....BIGOTS

 

I would actually agree that the state shouldn't take personal tastes into account. Thus any objection to same sex marriage should not be taken into account since all you have to do if you don't like it is simply not may somebody of the same sex.

 

Two things here. First, yes, I imagine couples crossing a border just so they can marry in a neighboring state then cross back. But "wedding mills" already exist. This will just add a few more customers - we aren't talking about a huge percentage increase in wedding here.

Second, the Lovings weren't arrested for the event of their wedding, they were arrested for their condition of being married in Virginia. If the state had merely let them be, the case brought before the court would have been very different, if they chose to bring one at all.

Whoa, timeout! I don't think SSM is unreasonable. If I indirectly expressed that it was a mistake. If I thought it was unreasonable I'd be arguing that no state should recognize it, anywhere. On the other hand, I also think that a state retaining the "traditional" legal definition of marriage is not unreasonable, whereas you think it is.

In my world it's so reasonable that it's been the status quo across time, culture, and religions for millennia. (That is not an appeal to tradition, it's an appeal to reason.)

If the norm across the world had been to define marriage as between two consenting adults, but the U.S. just randomly decided at the time to buck the trend and make marriage all about the opposite-sex relationship, then I'd agree with you. But the opposite is true, and therefore it isn't arbitrary.

Yes of course that's the goal of the movement. That's why I'm crying foul about the framing of the argument. They have framed the argument in such a way that you can't argue against it.

Disagree. As I said, our D of I and Constitution assume that "rights" are inherent to the people. They don't require a government to grant them; instead, losing those rights happens when the government takes them away.

I agree, but the wedding mills situation (welcome to America, btw) would, in my opinion, be a result of legal consistency at the federal level.

Close, but you're only trying to make a point. I'm saying that just because some people want their personal relationships categorized as legal marriage, that does not make for a compelling argument. Meanwhile, if they wanted to enter a legal marriage, that option is as available to them as it is to anyone else who doesn't want it (such as celibates)..

Barring the caveats that you personally consider reasonable, that is.

Right, except it would be unprecedented to limit states' authority to discriminate by gender when defining a relationship that has always been based on gender!

That would only be the beginning.

Again you're talking about the second question now. If states are required to honor each other's marriages, then privileged conversation protections would remain consistent.

Equal treatment for individuals, or for relational groupings? If for individuals then there is no problem. If for relational groupings, then why is it limited to a pairing? Or to unrelated partners? Applying equal protection as broadly as you want has the unavoidable side effect of making all the other marital limits "unreasonable."

 

We never have been. Even fully legal, same-sex marriages are a tiny percentage of all marriages.

Yes, I think this is correct. There is a paractical difference between a marriage being actively illegal, and a marriage being simply ignored and not officially recognized as existing. So the cases are different in that respect.

This is a good point. I'm not aware of any state abandoning the traditional definition of marriage. Most are extending it, but not altering it. Gays seek a traditional marriage, nothing else. Changing the participants doesn't change the institution.

Huh? Of course it's an appeal to tradition. If you want to say that all long-standing traditions BECOME "reasonable" because of their long standing, you need to make that case directly. After all, slavery exists, it's a tradition of long standing, there are even extended biblical passages about how to take, treat, and remit slaves. So is slavery therefore "reasonable?

Uh, wow! So taking a long-standing tradition and making this change is NOT arbitrary in one direction, but IS arbitrary in the other? Did you actually think about what you wrote here?

But you continue to emphasize tradition. My argument is more legal - we can make this change without the need to change a single law, regulation, or legal form. And that's because we're not changing marriage at all, we're only letting more people engage in it. Excluding some people from engaging but not others is therefore arbitrary.

Agreed, to deny basic rights, you must mis-frame the argument appropriately. Otherwise, you have no argument.

All rights are regulated. There is no such thing as an Absolute Right. And nobody disputes that the right of marriage is absolute. The question is whether the regulations serve any compelling purpose.

Can you explain this? They would result from some states allowing what others did not. Consistency at the federal level would eliminate them.

I don't get your point here. If two gay people in Alabama wish to marry, the ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO. For them, marriage is NOT AVAILABLE. So what are you trying to say?

And seriously, when you wish to exercise a right, the burden is not on you to persuade the state that your desire is appropriately compelling. The burden is on the state to provide (and defend) a compelling reason for denying you that right. You have this backwards.

No, barring the caveats that have satisfied the legal system as being sufficiently compelling. All of which are of course always subject to change.

Just as the Loving casse eliminated discrimination against a relationship which had always been based on race. This is simply another appeal to tradition - we shouldn't let some people marry today, because we've never let them marry in the past. This was the same reason we couldn't let women vote.

And if they are not so required?

These cases must be considered one by one, on the merits. If everyone has the right to marry everyone of their choice except for the exceptions (which I think is a good starting point), then we must carefully consider what exceptions we decide to impose, and justify each one. If one of those people does not WANT to marry, should that be an exception? Why or why not? If one of those people is 5 years old, should THAT be an exception? Why or why not? If we're talking about a group of 15 people, should THAT be an exception? And so on. And these decisions would be made (and altered later, perhaps) through due process of law.

Seriously, the only argument you have mounted is that you do not regard same sex marriage as desirable. So you say "marriage has always been THIS way, but I'm somehow not appealing to past practices." You have appealed to tradition, to religious practices, to "always based on gender" and general resistance to change for no better reason than opposition to change. Even though such a change would not affect you personally in any way.

 

If gays are seeking a traditional marriage, then it means they're seeking a marriage with someone of the opposite sex, and such a marriage would be legally recognized anywhere.

Really? What tradition is that? The American tradition? The Jewish tradition? The Inca tradition? The fact that its common practice spans and even predates all of these proves you don't understand what an appeal to tradition is.

Oh good grief, you guys cannot resist the urge to bring up slavery, can you? This is not slavery. People are free to do what they want.

No, you are emphasizing tradition, I'm pointing out how common the practice has been across traditions.

Just a wholesale change to the legal definition of "marriage," sure, no big deal.

You keep saying that, but yet you concede that marriage excludes some people no matter what.

Great example of falsely stating what's going on here!

Huh?

People's freedom to enter committed relationships with the people of their choosing is virtually unregulated by the U.S. government.

I said legally consistent, meaning leaving the states to define marriage as is their authority.

What do you mean? Who's stopping them? They can commit to one another, live together, celebrate anniversaries... And if they want a state-recognized marriage, they can do that, too, as long as it's with a member of the opposite sex. The state doesn't care if they're gay.

Most people consider the Baker v. Nelson decision to have satisfied that legal review of the opposite-sex caveat.

Of course! We don't want legal precedent to get in the way of "progress," right?

Huh? There is zero truth to the claim that marriage "had always been based on race." Legal, interracial marriage was quite common before the Lovings.

Ugh. I have not argued to prohibit anything, I've only argued that states have the authority to decide.

I'll say this much: an Amendment was required (the 19th) to limit states states' authority in restricting women's votes. It didn't happen just because women claimed incrimination. If you want to do things right, then you should advocate for a same-sex marriage amendment.

This statement proves you haven't been paying attention.

I refuted your tradition accusation already. And what religion have I appealed to?

Meanwhile, your argument, if I may paraphrase, is, "it's just not fair!" Well, as you pointed out, that wasn't good enough to get women's suffrage, why should it be good enough for this?

 

No, it means they seek a marriage in accordance with the thousands of laws and regulations which together define what a legal marriage is.

Fine, have it your way. You don't wish to extend the right to marriage to gays, because Americans, Jews, and Incas didn't do it that way. GREAT argument.

Except if they are gay and wish to marry. I notice that when another tradition is mentioned, you suddenly don't wish to consider tradition anymore. How convenient.

And, uh, so what?

Right, a "wholesale change" which doesn't require changing a SINGLE law or regulation defining marriage.

Yes, when we are discussing compelling grounds for denying a basic right. You haven't presented such a ground at all. "The Incas didn't do it that way" is NOT addressing the merits or demerits of some excuse to deny rights.

What's going on here is, gays desire legal marriage. You would deny them. Now, explain why.

Then allowing gays to legally marry shouldn't bother you. Obviously it does, and equally obviously by now, you can't explain why.

Within the limits imposed by the US Constitution. Nearly every one of those district and circuit court decisions cited the US Constitution as the grounds for eliminating arbitrary bans.

Unless they wish to marry one another.

Anyway, I see you wish to play games. I'm tired of this game. You are correct that my argument is, basically, that denying rights to some people for reasons unrelated to the denial simply is not fair. And I'm correct that your argument boils down to "Nyuh uh." Because ultimately, you HAVE no argument.

It will be interesting to see (1) whether the SCOTUS decides this case along religious lines (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy are all Roman Catholics), and (2) whether, like you, they will somehow not mention this in their arguments, for or against. I'll be most interested in reading Scalia's opinion, since he prides himself on being a strict constructionist, the 14th Amendment is pretty unambiguous, and his religious faith (he's on record as being a Young Earth Creationist!) simply requires him to construct it to mean the opposite of what it says.