1 - 8
A relevant fact left out of this article is that Judge Richard Posner is a Republican appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. Yet he still finds tradition alone to be wanting as a legally tenable reason to justify a SSM ban.
--- "If the traditional definition of marriage can be modified to allow unions incapable of producing offspring ... " Except that the current definition of marriage already allows "unions incapable of producing offspring" such as elderly, infertile, disabled, war wounded to name just a few. In a court of law (the relevant context here) an argument to exclude one group from marriage based on inability to procreate while at the same time allowing other non-procreative couples to marry -- at least not without providing some other argument beyond procreation. The judges in the hearing received little in the way of such alternative argument.
Well the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you, so you're the moron.
Your reply is 15 hours old as of this writing, so you may not see my response. Yet I feel compelled to respond... First, you did not provide one single citation as I challenged you to do. Your "explanation" that lawyers just don't have the moxie to make religion-based arguments simply doesn't hold water. It is not plausible that the lawyers at the Pacific Justice Institute don't have the moxie. Same with the attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom. These are lawyers who say out loud that they are dedicated to advancing the Christian faith through legal advocacy in constitutional law. If these dedicated Christian lawyers thought that a religion-based argument would support the denial of a civil right such as marriage, then they would have made that argument in court. You said, "deviant behavior may be allowed by democratic legislation...but it will never become a civil right." False. I assume you view homosexual activity as one of those "deviant behaviors" you believe cannot be a civil right. Yet, Lawrence v. Texas stands exactly for the proposition that private non-commercial sex between consenting adults is a civil right, even if those consenting adults are members of the same sex. Being a civil right means that neither the Federal government nor any state government may pass a law making such sex a crime. You have a civil right to have private sex with the person you choose and the government cannot interfere. Some people may think the kind of sex YOU have is deviant. Too bad for them, they can't get laws passed to prevent it. Darby, I suspect you will never accept that what I am telling you about American law is true. So be it. But as I implied before, not one single Federal case in the last hundred years exists that declares a law as being constitutional where the only justification for the law is a particular faith's religious doctrine. No law can deprive a person of a civil right where the basis for that law is exclusively one faith's religious beliefs.
Darby: Please provide one -- just one -- Supreme Court case citation where the court held that a law denying a group of persons a civil right was deemed constitutional exclusively on the basis that a particular faith's religious doctrine supported that law. Please limit your research to the last 100 years. No matter how much you insist it is "malarkey," no American law depriving people of a civil right can withstand constitutional scrutiny if the only argument in favor of that law is a religious one. Really, Darby, haven't you wondered why none of the anti-same-sex marriage lawyers defending these bans have ever made the argument in court that a gay marriage ban is constitutional because "God defined marriage." Really, haven't you ever wondered why that is?
Please then, by all means, urge the marriage equality opponents to make the religious=basis argument to the Supreme Court. I'll be home eating popcorn watching the argument fail. And, BTW, just which exactly of the 10 Commandments is codified into American law? Is it the part that states, "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall have no other gods before me?' No. Can't be that one because we have freedom of religion. The law doesn't force us all to worship the Abrahamic God. Maybe it's the commandment to "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy." No. Can't be that because there are no laws preventing people from working on Sundays. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Sure we outlaw murder, stealing, etc. But there are great vast swaths of Biblical laws that have no remote nexus to American laws.
From the article: "But, the best argument of the debate, I thought, ... '"It's not in the power of either the church or the state to redefine marriage, as God is its author," he said." Of course, you are free to believe that if it is part of your faith. But you cannot make that argument in an American court of law. Well, you CAN make the argument but it is going to be tossed out. Religious doctrines are an unconstitutional basis when dealing with civil rights under 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
You are sooo right! I live in Rhode Island and my wife and I were raising a son. But, last year the legislature legalized same-sex marriage and we had to give up our son to some gay people. The horror, the horror! (for those who may be too stupid to realize it, this was sarcasm)
1 - 8