Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad

[Jase]

The 14th amendment does not address the (in)equality of homosexuals either.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Therefore, as evidenced by the Colorado amendmant overrule, the Supreme Court can and does use the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to prevent discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

 

[Brennin]

Isn't this the same example of an appeal to authority that you accused BBW of? Try not being so hypocritical.

Back to the point, yes Jefferson was concerned about judicial tyranny. Too bad Justice John Marshall declared the courts had the power of judicial review based on Marbury v. Madison. Therefore, Jefferson's opinion really doesn't matter.

You cited the "founding fathers" to support your argument (without appealing to the words of a single one) and I cited one to upend your claim. There is no hypocrisy therein.

 

[Brennin]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Therefore, as evidenced by the Colorado amendmant overrule, the Supreme Court can and does use the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to prevent discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

Whether the majority in Romer v. Evans did so legitimately is another story.

 

[Jase]

You cited the "founding fathers" to support your argument (without appealing to the words of a single one) and I cited one to upend your claim. There is no hypocrisy therein.

I said nothing about the "founding fathers" and judicial review. I merely said they agreed to make the constitution vague and flexible so as to be able to be applied throughout the centuries. Jefferson was opposed to Marbury v. Madison, but was not in the majority and therefore, judicial review was added through case law.

 

[OllieFranz]

Your fallacious appeal to authority is noted.

Not every appeal to authority is fallacious. If both sides are agreed that it is an authority, and the appeal is limited to the points in which it speaks with authority, there is no fallacy. Christians debating among themselves accept the authority of the Scriptures.

You have acknowledged the authority of the US Constitution over the laws of this country. SCOTUS, is a reliable authority on our Constitution and our laws, individually because of their years of schooling in the law and their experience in overseeing the administration of justice under the law; and corporately, because as a body they have been given the authority to resolve conflicts between different clauses of the Constitution, different applications of the law, and conflict between a law and the Constitution. Their rulings set a binding precedent that becomes as much a part of the law as -- and, in fact, more truly the law than -- the bills enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

So appealing to SCOTUS in matters of US law is not a fallacy. And quoting their rulings is stating facts about the law, not simply appealing to SCOTUS' authority.

 

[OllieFranz]

Whether the majority in Romer v. Evans did so legitimately is another story.

Before the ruling you had an argument. If you had a specific case before them and were arguing that they should overrule Romer, you would have an argument. Otherwise, since they were acting in accord with their constitutional role, and since the ruling defines the law, the ruling is the very essence of its own legitimacy

 

[Crazy Liz]

Homosexuals have lobbying groups just like other special interest groups to promote things like same sex marriage and same sex adoption among other things. A quick example of the effect of such lobbying would be the new California law allowing homosexuals to marry. This did not come about from the Governor getting up one morning and thinking, "gee, you know we really need to let those homosexuals get married." It did come about however from various gay rights groups and others who were sympathetic lobbying for such a law. So here you see one part of the agenda - homosexuals wanting to be able to get legally married, and the groups that lobbied for it that made it happen. I'm sure you know the activitists and groups names better than I.

Uhm...

I think you are misinformed about California law.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I read the article & the summary of the book, and it makes an interesting argument. Can we predict whether gay marriage will have an effect on the rate of marriage among heterosexuals?

The idea that marriage is about coupling, not about children, economics or family alliances is a change I've seen several sociologists comment upon, citing popular attitudes toward the president's marital status and faithfulness as indicators. Presidents FRD and Kennedy both had affairs, yet were not publicly criticized because they were able to maintain their marriages. OTOH, Nelson Rockefeller could not get his party's nomination because he had been divorced and remarried. 20-30 years later, Reagan's previous divorce was never a matter of public comment, but Clinton's affair almost got him impeached. (And lest you say it was his lying about it, even putting the question to him while his wife continued to maintain the marriage would have been considered unseemly a few years earlier, and if anyone had been so impertinent to ask, of course he would have been expected to lie, in no small part out of consideration for his marriage.)

The causation/correlation question posed by Blankenhorn still is not answered, though. ISTM, the trend toward viewing marriage as about coupling alone, and not about the other social, political and economic aspects previously associated with marriage (not just children, as he asserts) has been on a trajectory for at least 50 years or more. I'm not sure whether permitting or prohibiting gay marriage can be expected to change that trend in any way. Perhaps instead, gay marriage is an issue that may predictably be expected to arise at a particular point along that trajectory, but without having any effect at all on the trend itself.

I don't know. I'm just speculating here. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I think other hypotheses explain the correlation with equal plausibility.