Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It says a lot of things. Care to provide a quote of that particular bit?
Get that? It is
more than the state recognized civil status. It is not apart from that status. It is not a contract that is sort of the same thing but not fully recognized as "marriage" by the state, is explicitly includes the state recognized and accepted civil contract that says that in the eyes of the state you are legally married.
You keep quoting this as though if you do it enough times, the words will change and say what you want them to say. Nowhere in that quote does it say that state issued benefits to couples who marry are a "fundamental right", much less that those things constitute what we think of as a "marriage". That marriage is itself more important than say a business contract and thus should be less easily restricted is not in doubt, nor is it being refuted. But the court is specifically speaking of the right to enter into that contract in the first place. I can find nothing in either the Perez v Sharp case nor the Loving v Virginia case which would suggest that the court views state granted benefits to married couples as a core component of that right.
I'll also point out another quote from that same case:
Perez v Sharp wrote:
The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's
child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.)
and
Perez v Sharp wrote:
The apparent purpose of the statute is to discourage the birth of children of mixed
ancestry within this state.
It's pretty clear (again) that the parties to the issue at question were not confused as to the relationship between marriage and procreation. In fact, it can be argued (and I have many times) that it is precisely because of this relationship that we place such great value on marriage in the first place. Take away the potential for procreation and marriage ceases to be anything more than an agreement between two people, just like any other.
Quote:
Quote:
It hasn't been contested so much as argued to be somewhat irrelevant. It's not a supreme court case, so it can't be assumed to have the same weight in terms of rulings and statements, and it doesn't touch on same sex relations at all (neither of them do). So it's kinda out on two for two points, isn't it?
Wow, you really know nothing about our judicial system, huh? You realize that when a lower federal court rules on something, that's the current status of it barring it being overturned by a higher court, right? Were you
not aware of this? Did you think the lower courts didn't really count until the Supreme Court ruled on it?
Huh? And no one is debating the unconstitutionality of anti-miscegeny laws Joph. Neither case touches on gay marriage. Both cases specifically mention the effect of denying marriage to people in the context of the effect that has on future children. It's kinda hard to read them and conclude that they somehow magically support the idea that gay couples have a constitutional right to receive government benefits if they choose to enter into a marriage contract.
Quote:
Quote:
It also acknowledges that the 14th amendment allows for cases in which the law could treat people of different races differently *if* the reasons held some purpose other than to simply discriminate.
Yeah, I've said numerous times that I find it amusing that you won't just admit that you're denying homosexuals their basic civil right because you think it's justified.
Basic civil right to what? Get a tax break? You love to mix words around. We're talking about a set of government subsidies Joph. That's it. A couple tax modifications, and some legislation allowing for transfer of SS and pension benefits. Yet, whenever I focus on that, you broaden the terminology to "denying them marriage" as though I didn't already make the point that marriage contracts are not being denied, living as a married couple isn't being denied, and none of the things we normally associate with being married are being denied.
Now they're being denied a basic civil right? What right? And if you say "the right to marry", I'm going to strangle you. Be more specific. What precisely are they being denied if the state does not grant them a marriage license? It's not the right to marry. It's only the ability to qualify for state benefits. And that is *not* a right. It's a benefit.
Quote:
Instead you'll spin, spin and spin some more to deny that that right ever existed or that it really means marriage or that it doesn't mean the sort of marriage where you get benefits or...
Lol. I'm not spinning this. You are. I have been incredibly clear. You have yet to show me a single shred of support for your assertion that state benefits granted to married couples constitutes a "fundamental right". Nothing in any quote or case you've referenced supports that, yet your entire argument rests on it. On the other hand, I have the very reasonable fact that benefits can't be rights to back up my position. I don't need to go much farther than that, do I?
Quote:
Quote:
Um... I'll also point out the hilarity of using rulings on racial mixing of marriages to argue that marriage benefits should be applied even to same sex couples and while insisting that it has nothing to do with procreation.
Again, you don't understand the courts. You don't understand why it's important. I get it now. Maybe you should go back to screaming "It's obvious!"
Ah. You don't have an answer, so you attack me for apparently not understanding. Are you denying that the primary purpose of the anti-miscegenoy laws in question were to prevent white people from breeding with non-white people? I'd love to hear you support that position!
You can't of course, so you'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. But it wont Joph. Facts are facts. No one involved in those cases failed to grasp that laws which prevented mixed race people from marrying were intended to prevent mixed race children from appearing, and if they did to make sure they were punished legally for existing. That's the "fundamental right" at stake here. That's what propels this from a case of mere discrimination to a constitutional violation.
But you don't want to admit it because you'd rather be ignorant and support your "side" than realize the truth. This entire issue is not about rights. It's about the issue itself. There's no grand anti-gay agenda playing out here. The laws in question and benefits created weren't created to deny gay people something. Gay couples weren't even considered. That's how this issue differs dramatically from the issue of mixed race marriages. But you know that. You just don't want to admit it. It's more comfortable for you to pretend it's about bad guys discriminating against innocent victims.
That's really not what it's about.
