I agree with Dan's comments about BLAG having sufficient standing in the case to create an actual controversy and I think also think that Scalia's attempts to distinguish the Chadha case are unconvincing.

As to Kennedy's opinion, and how it arose, Archduke's theory seems like a reasonable conjecture to me. I am a bit confused about combining equal protection with due process (apparently procedural). Isnt't the problem that two groups of people, gay and non-gay, are being treated differently without a rational basis for doing so? It doesn't seem like the problem is judicial review before property is taken.
It does seem plausible to me that the liberal justices demanded that federalism not be the sole basis for the opinion and that Kennedy threw in a few crumbs about due processs and equal protection, though.

danivon wrote:DF - in what way am I not letting you believe what you like? I am expressing disagreement and asking for the basis of your beliefs.

You are the one who asserted that "the moral definition" of marriage is as if it were set in stone. I don't think there is a single moral definition, or that it is unchanging.

If the basis of morality is the whim of the populace, there is no morality.

In some places in the world, cannibalism is accepted. Others don't mind a bit of child rape now and then.

Again, if morality what most people accept, then there is none.

Also interesting: a majority of people in CA voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Apparently, everything must be "moral." A majority can't decide it, so every minority is entitled to its own morality.

Thus, there is none.

It seems that your source for 'the' definition does not allow for divorce in cases of non-sexual abuse. Whether such abuse is condoned is beside the point. Pointing out my objection is not intolerace, less still oppressing you by not letting you have your own beliefs.

Pointing out there is a Creator is not denying you your beliefs.

I don't believe that I said morality was at the whim of the populace, just that it is not immutable. You are evading my point, which was based on your assertion of there being a moral definition of marriage that is 'as it were' set in stone.

The odd thing is that the part of the Bible you quoted is in context where Jesus asserts that the previous definition (one that alllowed for a more liberal divorce code) no longer applied. And then it was further revised by Paul, to allow another reason for divorce. Now, you may rationalise the sequence of events differently, but it comes down to this - you have a view of morality, which you believe comes from the Bible (as you interpret it), an expression of the Will of God. It may be immutable to you, but that doesn't mean we share it, or even that all Christians share it exactly as you do (perhaps you may assert that this means they are not really Christians, but they may think likewise and it's bordering on the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy anyway).

Neither have I claimed that you are denying me the ability to believe whay I want. You are the one crying victim. The opposite of your last sentence is also true - pointing out that there may not be a Creator ( or that if there is one they may not be the same as you think they are) does not deny you your belief in a Creator, or their definitions of morality.

And the thing is that marriage has been a legal institution for longer than it has been a Christian one (as it predates Christ and was a legal institution in the Roman Empire and a great many other places). The only real definitiob of marriage is the current legal one.

danivon wrote:I don't believe that I said morality was at the whim of the populace, just that it is not immutable.

Let's see: it can change, but not at the whim of the populace . . . so who/what changes it?

That is THE issue.

You are evading my point, which was based on your assertion of there being a moral definition of marriage that is 'as it were' set in stone.

See above.

I'm not evading it. I am saying that I have a source for morality. You have none.

The odd thing is that the part of the Bible you quoted is in context where Jesus asserts that the previous definition (one that alllowed for a more liberal divorce code) no longer applied.

It's not odd at all. God designed marriage. God (the second Person of the Trinity) is merely explaining the means for ending it. Jesus is simply going back to the origin: "He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt 19:8 ESV)

It may be immutable to you, but that doesn't mean we share it, or even that all Christians share it exactly as you do (perhaps you may assert that this means they are not really Christians, but they may think likewise and it's bordering on the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy anyway)

.

It's not my opinion that counts.

Neither have I claimed that you are denying me the ability to believe whay I want. You are the one crying victim. The opposite of your last sentence is also true - pointing out that there may not be a Creator ( or that if there is one they may not be the same as you think they are) does not deny you your belief in a Creator, or their definitions of morality.

Right. So, why is it good and right to force the morality of a minority on everyone else?

You know, kind of like the case where the British judge decided a Muslim lad was not guilty of statutory rape because his religion permits it.

And the thing is that marriage has been a legal institution for longer than it has been a Christian one (as it predates Christ and was a legal institution in the Roman Empire and a great many other places). The only real definitiob of marriage is the current legal one.

Which I have argued should only be changed by a State. However, that's not what happened in California. One judge struck down a proposition defining marriage as one man and one woman, and now gay marriage is the law in California--despite two votes by the electorate.

So, not even the legal definition of marriage is "real."

fate

Right. So, why is it good and right to force the morality of a minority on everyone else?

Apparently in California, according to you. Where only a minority of people voted for Prop 8.
(52.3% of 13 million votes is hardly a majority of the population.)

Now, it was a majority of the voters, in that vote. But it was still a minority of the adults in the state.
And I'm not really trying to dispute you here, just saying there's majority of voters, and majority of population. .... And there is a difference.

Moreover, if it was right to strike down state laws against inter race marriage in Loving V, Virginia - then at that time Scotus was genuinely acting without a majority support amongst Americans. Inter racial marriage was a very unpopular idea at the time. So, I'll say in that case Scotus forced morality on most Americans. And rightly so...

The idea that Scotus should only act to protect unpopular minority opinion, but that people should other wise wait for change brought about by societal opinion, is also a little strange. People have a right to address their constitutional rights no matter the societal opinion. But to also deny that public acceptance has a bearing on how a court rules ignores reality.
It would have been easier for SCOTUS to rule for DOMA if it only affected one or two small states. But since it affected 13 states, and many thousands of married Gay and Lesbian couples, and DC the impact of their ruling would be much larger. That has to affect how they rule.

rickyp wrote:fate

Right. So, why is it good and right to force the morality of a minority on everyone else?

Apparently in California, according to you. Where only a minority of people voted for Prop 8.
(52.3% of 13 million votes is hardly a majority of the population.)

President Obama won the State. Same election. Is that not legitimate either?

Now, it was a majority of the voters, in that vote. But it was still a minority of the adults in the state.

There is only one legitimate means of measuring what people want: at the ballot box.

And I'm not really trying to dispute you here, just saying there's majority of voters, and majority of population. .... And there is a difference.

But, you can't prove that. Cite a million polls, it won't change a thing because polls do not have the same weight as elections.

Moreover, if it was right to strike down state laws against inter race marriage in Loving V, Virginia - then at that time Scotus was genuinely acting without a majority support amongst Americans. Inter racial marriage was a very unpopular idea at the time. So, I'll say in that case Scotus forced morality on most Americans. And rightly so...

Did the Court say there is a Constitutional right for anyone to marry anyone? If not, shut up with the Loving case. The basis with which it struck down Prop 8 was standing, which is fairly preposterous. The people voted. They have a right to have their vote either count or overturned on a Constitutional basis, not on a technicality.

Just enjoy Canada, eh.

As an added note, Californians also passed the same law in 2000.

So, to say "it's not a majority of adults" in CA ignores the facts. Two elections; two wins.

ummm, maybe math is different in Canada? I was taught 52.3% is most certainly a majority. Anything over 50% is a majority. A slight majority, but a majority nonetheless.

and the Loving case, that did not change the definition of marriage it was how laws were applied to marriage. A union between a man and a woman has nothing to do with race so a court allowing mixed race marriage did NOTHING to change the definition. Allowing same sex marriages does however change the entire definition. I ask again, why do we not allow multiple partner marriage, all it takes is a change of the definition, you are discriminating against polyamorous people!? The exact same arguments can be made for them as for gays. You want to point out all sorts of reasons why such multiple partner unions often are based on subservient roles, etc...I can point to examples where they are not, I can point to examples of such a situation in traditional marriages. This simple change of definition would allow loving people now be happy ...do you want them unhappy?

tom

and the Loving case, that did not change the definition of marriage it was how laws were applied to marriage. A union between a man and a woman has nothing to do with race so a court allowing mixed race marriage did NOTHING to change the definition

Prior to Loving, the legal definition of marriage in many states did not include a marriage between black and white.
After, it did.
SCOTUS did not change the legal definition of marriage in any state. It simply affirmed that the federal government did not have the right to discriminate against couples in legally recognized same sex marriages. The states that legalized gay marriage had already changed the legal definition Tom.
The genie is out of the bottle. The bell is rung.

Tom

I ask again, why do we not allow multiple partner marriage, all it takes is a change of the definition, you are discriminating against polyamorous people!?

The legal definition must be changed. By changing laws.
it is possible to view the current illegality of polygamy etc as discrimination.
That legal discrimination is currently held to be justifiable. By the courts and by the vast majority of citizens. I don't see either society or the courts changing that attitude, do you?

On the other hand, both society, and the courts have changed attitudes on same sex marriage. And effectively changed the laws and therefore the legal definition of marriage.


fate

Did the Court say there is a Constitutional right for anyone to marry anyone? If not, shut up with the Loving case

.
The Loving Case is considered appropriate because it concerns equal access to the right to marry regardless of race. In recent years, as rights protections have widened to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation ... equal access once again applies.
With other court challenges in the futures, and as voters and states legislature widen the legal acceptance of marriage ... it becomes increasingly important.

rickyp wrote:tom

and the Loving case, that did not change the definition of marriage it was how laws were applied to marriage. A union between a man and a woman has nothing to do with race so a court allowing mixed race marriage did NOTHING to change the definition

Prior to Loving, the legal definition of marriage in many states did not include a marriage between black and white.
After, it did.

Right, but marriage between a man and a woman was not changed. The centuries-old definition was not changed.

SCOTUS did not change the legal definition of marriage in any state. It simply affirmed that the federal government did not have the right to discriminate against couples in legally recognized same sex marriages. The states that legalized gay marriage had already changed the legal definition Tom.
The genie is out of the bottle. The bell is rung.

It did change the definition of democracy. It redefined it to a biased judge (Prop 8 ruling).

You presume gay marriage will rule the land. Maybe it will. Maybe the pendulum will swing back. Roe is the "law of the land," but people are increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of unfettered abortion.

As gay marriage has its impact, including eventually, the legalization of polyamory and who knows what else, there may yet be a turning back. Remember: this is all very new.

Tom

I ask again, why do we not allow multiple partner marriage, all it takes is a change of the definition, you are discriminating against polyamorous people!?

The legal definition must be changed. By changing laws.
it is possible to view the current illegality of polygamy etc as discrimination.
That legal discrimination is currently held to be justifiable. By the courts and by the vast majority of citizens. I don't see either society or the courts changing that attitude, do you?

It won't matter if, as the proponents of gay marriage have said, that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Why should a little thing like them already being married stop anything?

On the other hand, both society, and the courts have changed attitudes on same sex marriage. And effectively changed the laws and therefore the legal definition of marriage.

So, now you support majority rule? Really?

fate

Did the Court say there is a Constitutional right for anyone to marry anyone? If not, shut up with the Loving case

.
The Loving Case is considered appropriate because it concerns equal access to the right to marry regardless of race.

It's not appropriate because the Court did NOT rule that "equal access without regard to gender" was the basis of its ruling.

In recent years, as rights protections have widened to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation ... equal access once again applies.

Not on this ruling, so . . . stop it.

here we go again, Ricky, you always point to things that suit your position and ignore those same examples when they do not suit your opinion, you simply can't have it both ways!
can we not simply change the definition of marriage to allow people to "marry" farm animals? It's nothing more than changing the definition isn't it?

marriage is between a man and a woman, to change the definition is really nothing but a political agenda. Does this put gays at a disadvantage? Maybe but I can't be a mother, hey, sucks to be me if that's what I want. Men have to register for the draft, women do not ...we are equal but not the same, gays are equal ...but not the same.

DF - in response to your last reply to me:

1) I have not been asserting that my moral view of marriage is 'the moral definition', and I have not been claiming that there is a single moral definition of marriage. So my morality and its sources (which do exist, just because they are not supernatural does not mean they do not exist) are irrelevant. Snide comments based on your prejudices about atheists even less relevant.

2) The point about morality is that we don't all agree. Not even all Christians agree, let alone everyone on the planet. Does that mean I subscribe to total moral relativism? Nope. It means that I take a step back and notice that what is considered the 'moral' definition or view of something is not set in stone (or 'as it were' set in stone), but fluid. It can vary over time and between people and groups of people at the same time.

3) So regardless of your moral definition of marriage (or anyone else's), the reality comes down to what marriage actually is. I know that some think it is just about God and the couple, but for a very long time it has been about far more than just that (and for millions, if not billions, God is not seen as a factor). It's about inheritance, property, relationships with the State and with others, duites and obligations, rights and entitlements. When you assert that States are the ones who should define marriage, you undermine any resort to 'moral' aboslutes - there are 50 States, and already they have a range of different definitions.

4) Do you have a citation for that British case you bring up? I found one where the lad in question had been convicted with a suspended sentence, but not a 'not guilty' verdict.

5) I never asserted that it was 'good and right to force the morality of a minority on everyone else'. I don't agree even that it is good and right to force the morality of a majority on everyone else.

You still have not answered the question why you are insisting that I am not allowing you to believe what you want. You called me intolerant on that basis, and asserted moral superiority for it, but still I can't see how disagreeing with you does this.

Essentially, you call me intolerant, because I don't agree with legal bans on stuff. Meh.

tom

can we not simply change the definition of marriage to allow people to "marry" farm animals?

Yeah you could. But I doubt that there will be laws written to accomplish this or that there is a legal basis to make it happen according to current jurisprudence or the constitution.
And the same applies to polygamy....


tom

marriage is between a man and a woman, to change the definition is really nothing but a political agenda

Then what about those laws that create marriages in the following? Are these laws fictional?
You remind me of the man who declarred that he was struggling with reality for years, but was now happy to announce he'd finally over come it.

As of July 2013, eleven state governments (those of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware), along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, and the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel allow same-sex marriage; the states of Rhode Island, and Minnesota will join on August 1, 2013, bringing the total to 30% of the U.S. population. Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not allowed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court ruling,[34] tribal council rulings,[35] and upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum in three of these states.[36][37] Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions

danivon wrote:DF - in response to your last reply to me:

1) I have not been asserting that my moral view of marriage is 'the moral definition', and I have not been claiming that there is a single moral definition of marriage. So my morality and its sources (which do exist, just because they are not supernatural does not mean they do not exist) are irrelevant. Snide comments based on your prejudices about atheists even less relevant.

So . . . because you are not making assertions, your sources are irrelevant?

Okay.

2) The point about morality is that we don't all agree. Not even all Christians agree, let alone everyone on the planet. Does that mean I subscribe to total moral relativism? Nope. It means that I take a step back and notice that what is considered the 'moral' definition or view of something is not set in stone (or 'as it were' set in stone), but fluid. It can vary over time and between people and groups of people at the same time.

Right. Some people think it's fine to sodomize 4 year-olds. That doesn't mean they're right. So, we agree on that.

However, if there is to be any standard, there must be a source. It can be you, it can be the Bible, it can be Hugh Hefner, it can be majority rule, but there has to be a source. You're acting as if there can be a "moral definition of marriage" without a source. I think that's rubbish.

3) So regardless of your moral definition of marriage (or anyone else's), the reality comes down to what marriage actually is.

That is meaningless. It's a moving cloud of nonsense.

I know that some think it is just about God and the couple, but for a very long time it has been about far more than just that (and for millions, if not billions, God is not seen as a factor).

Immaterial. If there is a God, it doesn't matter if some, many, or all disregard Him.

It's about inheritance, property, relationships with the State and with others, duites and obligations, rights and entitlements. When you assert that States are the ones who should define marriage, you undermine any resort to 'moral' aboslutes - there are 50 States, and already they have a range of different definitions.

You've just described the Constitution. You've also described contracts. We needn't change the definition of a word so that homosexuals can have contractual protection.

4) Do you have a citation for that British case you bring up? I found one where the lad in question had been convicted with a suspended sentence, but not a 'not guilty' verdict.

Oh. Sorry. His sentence was suspended. That's a very harsh punishment. All he did was meet her on Facebook, groom her, then had sex with her. Of course, she tempted him.

5) I never asserted that it was 'good and right to force the morality of a minority on everyone else'. I don't agree even that it is good and right to force the morality of a majority on everyone else.

Once again, you're pretzeling yourself to try and not take a stand: well done.

You still have not answered the question why you are insisting that I am not allowing you to believe what you want. You called me intolerant on that basis, and asserted moral superiority for it, but still I can't see how disagreeing with you does this.

Actually, I didn't assert moral superiority. You inferred that. If you're tolerant of my position, then quit arguing with me--I can express my opinion and you are free to reject it. See how that works?

Essentially, you call me intolerant, because I don't agree with legal bans on stuff. Meh.

No, because you can't let go of your base idea: that I HAVE to be wrong and you HAVE to prove it. By any definition, that's not tolerance.

[quote="rickyp"And the same applies to polygamy.... [/quote]

Wrong.

If the basis for permitting homosexual marriage is a fundamental right to marry whomever one chooses, then polyamory must be legalized.

What is the injury to anyone else? What is the justification for discrimination?

It's all the same, you just don't want to see it. Stay blinded my friend.