Same sex marriage legal impact

[Frimp]

I think that more people in the country support a ban on gay marriage than don't.  So, I think they'll be successful in stalling it, but the trend is overwhelmingly towards pro gay-marriage.  It might take a 25 years...but it'll happen.

If the state's people vote it to be, than so be it. Activist judges should not over ride the will of the people.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, like when those activist judges overrode the will of the people and integrated schools.

That's a decision that should be made at the state level, right?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Both of y'all hold on a minute. Temperment towards homosexuals ebbs and flows in this country. In the 70's, homosexuals were quickly gaining acceptance, and many of teh adoption laws were re-written. In the 1980s, along with the AIDS crisis and other cultural shifts, all those gained rights were swept away. From the mid-90s onward, we've been shifting back towards granting homosexuals greater rights.

As it stands, history will continuously shift back and forth. What we are in favor of today we will desecrate tomorrow. They may very well gain marriage rights. But they will eventually lose them again.

I would like to also point out that when you push democracy too hard, when you force change too quickly (i.e. through a quick court decision, rather than generations of education) all you're going to get is anger and dissention. Abortion, for example, rips this country in two. I would be very careful, were I a court, before granting anyone anymore rights until I was sure the country was flaccid enough not to protest them.

Absolutely there will be ebbs and flows that certainly has been the case with the civil rights movement and the women's movement. 

ERA failed in the 70s but for the most part either through S. Ct case, federal law, and state law it has pretty much become the law of the land.   

The KKK and Jim Crow laws were a backlash against blacks getting more rights.  Affirmative action has resulted in both steps forward in some case and increased racism and discrimination in other cases. 

And I do think that in some cases courts going to far to fast has resulted in more backlash than if things went slower.  And sometimes the wrong test case is brought. 

So no, I don't think it will be a straight line to gay equality.  But I do expect that 50 years from now we will look back and view those who opposed gay marriage the same way most of us look on Virginia's law banning interracial marriage today and wonder what was the big deal.  Will the road to get there be pretty?  Hell no, it will be ugly with violence and hate on both sides.  But if history is any sort of judge we will get there, for the same reason why we have seen success in the women's movement and civil rights movement.   

[Phishfan]

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

We passed that dumb ass Amendment about caging pigs a few years ago.

[SCFinfan]

Absolutely there will be ebbs and flows that certainly has been the case with the civil rights movement and the women's movement. 

ERA failed in the 70s but for the most part either through S. Ct case, federal law, and state law it has pretty much become the law of the land.   

The KKK and Jim Crow laws were a backlash against blacks getting more rights.  Affirmative action has resulted in both steps forward in some case and increased racism and discrimination in other cases. 

And I do think that in some cases courts going to far to fast has resulted in more backlash than if things went slower.  And sometimes the wrong test case is brought. 

So no, I don't think it will be a straight line to gay equality.  But I do expect that 50 years from now we will look back and view those who opposed gay marriage the same way most of us look on Virginia's law banning interracial marriage today and wonder what was the big deal.  Will the road to get there be pretty?  Hell no, it will be ugly with violence and hate on both sides.  But if history is any sort of judge we will get there, for the same reason why we have seen success in the women's movement and civil rights movement.   

Some of the already-converted will look back and not understand. Many of those born in the future, having no knowledge of the controversy, and being to lazy to look back, will undoubtedly not care what the controversy was about.

But there will be some who still linger. Look at the case of abortion. 36 years after that decision came down, the country is still split down the middle over it. All sorts of odd case law has come down because of it (See Hill v. Colorado). Even older, look at the evolution controversy in schools. I am against teaching creationism to children. But this controversy still bubbles over, creates litigation, and it will not go away just because a court says it's illegal.

We live in a time when we have become utilitarian. We consider the harm principle the foundation for morality or at least legality. When this is true of societies, all sorts of new "rights" appear, as not everything called immoral creates a direct harm which people see. But the country will not always be utilitarian. And the current panoply of rights will not always be the same: it will continue to expand and contract.

[Dave Gray]

We passed that dumb ass Amendment about caging pigs a few years ago.

Yes, we did.

And unfortunately, I voted for it, not really understanding why I shouldn't.  Even though I agree with the principles of the amendment, the constitution wasn't the place for it.

[Phishfan]

Dave, let's just chalk that up to youth. I tried like hell to convice people that it has no place in the State Constitution, but most of my friends wouldn't listen either.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

We passed that dumb ass Amendment about caging pigs a few years ago.

I just googled about that.  Did not know about that.   And while I would want Ms Piggy to be treated well while pregnant.  (I am huge muppets fan)  That does not belong in a constitution. 

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, of course. But explain to me the reason behind it, as you must be able to when the law gets facially challenged as unconstitutional. You'll be able to give me a host of reasons for the law you list above. But as for outlawing incest, there are none you can give that aren't demonstrably unusable in every situation.

Since when is the criteria for a law "usable in every situation"?  We have judges for a reason.

My contention is this: sure, the Court can, and probably will not extend marriage rights to incestuous couples, but not for long. They can't. It's pure dishonesty to try to say that there is any compelling secular reason out there to deny marriage rights to incestuous couples if you're going to extend them to homosexuals. This is a point I believe you missed.

Once again: homosexual activity is constitutionally protected, incestuous activity is not.  Until these two are on the same footing, discussing the legalization of incestuous marriage isn't just counting your chickens before they've hatched; it's counting your chickens before you even have a farm.

There is a simple progression of legalization here:

sexual activity -> civil unions -> marriage

Homosexual couples have already attained the rights to the first two, and are attempt to secure their rights to the third.  You're talking about the difficulties in securing the third part for incestuous couples, but they haven't even secured the first two.

Because as I said before, privacy concerns override in the area of sexual activity. The police shouldn't be able to peep in your windows, no matter who you are.

And yet somehow, anti-incest laws exist.

[bsmooth]

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

Then that means God is an all knowing, all seeing being, which means there either no free will, or God is okay with what we have done or will do as it has already been observed.
It also means no human could possibley understand or convey the word of God to be written down as a definitive set of rules.