Obergefell discussion

[King Arts]

So by your logic, woman post menopause can't be married then? What about people who are infertile? See, that's not the reason government uses for marriage, and those explanations failed as arguments in court.

Also, there's surrogacy and adoption, as well as science getting closer every day to being able to create a biological child that has two dads as parents.

Yes if a woman is known to be barren under this logic she would be banned from marriage. That doesn’t mean we test every woman, we presume they are fertile. But if after marriage the union has not produced fruit the government should check to see if there is fraud. And I already said adoption shouldn’t count the children are not yours.

Your last argument is a non sequiter right now that tech doesn’t exist. If it does then the issue could be looked at again.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes if a woman is known to be barren under this logic she would be banned from marriage. That doesn’t mean we test every woman, we presume they are fertile. But if after marriage the union has not produced fruit the government should check to see if there is fraud. And I already said adoption shouldn’t count the children are not yours.

Your last argument is a non sequiter right now that tech doesn’t exist. If it does then the issue could be looked at again.

... Yeah, that's not at all how the government should work. At all. The government constantly checking up on marriages, and thus adding an extra enforcement arm to the government. It's also completely backwards: rights don't come from what benefits government, but what benefits the people.

And kids not the only benefit to marriage. There's also tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. And to the extent that the US government offers benefits, it should and must offer them without discriminating on sex or race. And determining whether Taylor can marry Edward based on Taylor's sex is sex discrimination per Bostock, and thus violates the equal protection (which is extended to sex per Reed v Reed). Since marriage is a fundamental right rooted in the nation's history, even if Alito's Dobbs proposed opinion is adopted, Same Sex marriage is valid.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I am adopted, and frankly claiming that my parents, rather than my sperm donor and incubator, are not worthy of being considered parents and properly married is incredibly offensive

 

[LordsFire]

It depends on what you define marriage as. Even if you go full secular if the definition the government uses is an alliance between two people with the expectation that they will have each other’s biological children to pass on their DNA and bloodline. Sorry gays can’t do it because they can’t have their own real children only adopt.

I'm curious where you got the idea that this was the case.

 

[WolfBear]

So by your logic, woman post menopause can't be married then? What about people who are infertile? See, that's not the reason government uses for marriage, and those explanations failed as arguments in court.

Also, there's surrogacy and adoption, as well as science getting closer every day to being able to create a biological child that has two dads as parents.

Science is also getting us closer to being able to create children with more than two biological parents. Would this justify government recognition of 3+ person marriages, in your honest opinion?

 

[WolfBear]

I am adopted, and frankly claiming that my parents, rather than my sperm donor and incubator, are not worthy of being considered parents and properly married is incredibly offensive

How do you feel about your biological parents? Would you feel differently if they were involved in your life alongside your adoptive parents?

 

[Abhorsen]

Science is also getting us closer to being able to create children with more than two biological parents. Would this justify government recognition of 3+ person marriages, in your honest opinion?

Kids have nothing to do with government marriage. I was just rebutting a stupid point.

I pointed out the adoption thing because his dismissal of it was bullshit.

 

[LordSunhawk]

How do you feel about your biological parents? Would you feel differently if they were involved in your life alongside your adoptive parents?

My sperm donor was a doctor who tried to coerce my incubator to abort me, said incubator only bore me to term out of spite and for a payment from the adoption agency.

My *parents* were unable to have children naturally. They were married for over 50 years and anybody who claims that they weren't really married because they had to adopt can fuck off and die in a fucking fire.

 

[King Arts]

... Yeah, that's not at all how the government should work. At all. The government constantly checking up on marriages, and thus adding an extra enforcement arm to the government. It's also completely backwards: rights don't come from what benefits government, but what benefits the people.

And kids not the only benefit to marriage. There's also tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. And to the extent that the US government offers benefits, it should and must offer them without discriminating on sex or race. And determining whether Taylor can marry Edward based on Taylor's sex is sex discrimination per Bostock, and thus violates the equal protection (which is extended to sex per Reed v Reed). Since marriage is a fundamental right rooted in the nation's history, even if Alito's Dobbs proposed opinion is adopted, Same Sex marriage is valid.

You do realize government doesn’t have to recognize marriage? You also know government can give benefits to people that do things that benefit it like military veterans. A government can do similar things to families and mothers for producing more people that go on to contribute.
It would all be consensual, the enforcement arm is needed to punish theft and fraud. The government won’t stop people from living with who they want and having sex with whoever. But if you make a contract with the government for tax cuts or other benefits in exchange for you making new citizens you better keep your word and not break the contract.
Also marriage isn’t a right in the constitution.
Didn’t you also say we should end birthright citizenship? If that’s true then you want the nation to make sure the pop of ethnic Americans won’t go down.

I am adopted, and frankly claiming that my parents, rather than my sperm donor and incubator, are not worthy of being considered parents and properly married is incredibly offensive

I actually don’t believe that I’m just showing Ab that there is a decent logical argument against gay marriage that is secular. I don’t think this would be good for America because I support birth right citizenship. But this would work for ethnic nation states like Japan.

I'm curious where you got the idea that this was the case.

Well as most of history has shown people married so that they could make sure their kids were theirs and take care of them instead of just pumping and dumping, it’s also why adultery was so heavily punished no one wanted to be checked.

 

[King Arts]

My sperm donor was a doctor who tried to coerce my incubator to abort me, said incubator only bore me to term out of spite and for a payment from the adoption agency.

My *parents* were unable to have children naturally. They were married for over 50 years and anybody who claims that they weren't really married because they had to adopt can fuck off and die in a fucking fire.

Wow I’m sorry you had to go through that your male DNA ancestor was trash.

 

[Abhorsen]

You do realize government doesn’t have to recognize marriage?

Did you read anything I posted at all?

You also know government can give benefits to people that do things that benefit it like military veterans. A government can do similar things to families and mothers for producing more people that go on to contribute.

It would all be consensual, the enforcement arm is needed to punish theft and fraud. The government won’t stop people from living with who they want and having sex with whoever. But if you make a contract with the government for tax cuts or other benefits in exchange for you making new citizens you better keep your word and not break the contract.

So two major problems here: you probably wouldn't be able to discriminate between families raising adopted or born children. Because that would be discriminate against families unable to do so on a medical condition or because of the sex make-up of the couple. And that's just if it was a money grant. You add all the other benefits of marriage, and also calling it a marriage, and you are far into a no go zone, constitutionally speaking.

Also marriage isn’t a right in the constitution.

... Yet more evidence you don't know what you are talking about. There are rights written in the constitution, and also those which are "fundamental rights rooted in the nation's history" which is basically a catch all for things not listed, but recognized as rights. You know, like I pointed out up above? That quote is paraphrased (I won't bother looking up the exact one) from Alito's abortion decision, for the record.

And marriage is considered one of these.

Didn’t you also say we should end birthright citizenship? If that’s true then you want the nation to make sure the pop of ethnic Americans won’t go down.

Nope. Never said this, I believe the opposite.

I actually don’t believe that I’m just showing Ab that there is a decent logical argument against gay marriage that is secular. I don’t think this would be good for America because I support birth right citizenship. But this would work for ethnic nation states like Japan.

There really isn't though? Marriage in the US isn't only, or even primarily, about sexual reproduction. It has a lot of factors, including raising the next generation, financial security, emotional well being, creating a family-oriented society, etc.

It's a multipurpose tool. And so just because a pair of people don't use one part of the tool doesn't mean their marriage is useless.

It also infringes on the establishment clause, as it would only recognize marriage that satisfies some religions.

Yes, polygamy is a sticking point, but the government can generally plead that accommodating that would be too complicated, giving it a compelling government interest, and no legal recognition of polygamy is the least restrictive and a narrow tailoring, so it'd pass muster.


See, your argument would nullify what even conservatives consider marriages, which means you've got a bad argument.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes, polygamy is a sticking point, but the government can generally plead that accommodating that would be too complicated,

Would it? At least some places allow children to have more than two legal parents, after all.

 

[Abhorsen]

Would it? At least some places allow children to have more than two legal parents, after all.

In the US? It'd be an absolute mess. Who's married to who, where does it end, could all of America get married in one massive joint filing? And I could go on. Overall, bad idea.

 

[King Arts]

Did you read anything I posted at all?

Umm I’m sorry but I thought you said the government should stay out of marriage aka not recognize any?

So two major problems here: you probably wouldn't be able to discriminate between families raising adopted or born children. Because that would be discriminate against families unable to do so on a medical condition or because of the sex make-up of the couple. And that's just if it was a money grant. You add all the other benefits of marriage, and also calling it a marriage, and you are far into a no go zone, constitutionally speaking.

Again you could discriminate against those with the adoption thing if your goal is to entice the population to actually grow.

Yet more evidence you don't know what you are talking about. There are rights written in the constitution, and also those which are "fundamental rights rooted in the nation's history" which is basically a catch all for things not listed, but recognized as rights. You know, like I pointed out up above? That quote is paraphrased (I won't bother looking up the exact one) from Alito's abortion decision, for the record.

And marriage is considered one of these.

Yet it for 300 years a thing like gay marriage was never even thought of that doesn’t sound like a vital part of our national.

Nope. Never said this, I believe the opposite.

I’m sorry I think I confused you with Bacle.

There really isn't though? Marriage in the US isn't only, or even primarily, about sexual reproduction. It has a lot of factors, including raising the next generation, financial security, emotional well being, creating a family-oriented society, etc.

It's a multipurpose tool. And so just because a pair of people don't use one part of the tool doesn't mean their marriage is useless.

It also infringes on the establishment clause, as it would only recognize marriage that satisfies some religions.

Umm what are you talking about? This in no way violates the establishment clause because this has nothing to do with religion. I can’t think of any religion that says what I just said. I’m arguing off purely materialistic thought process where the primary purpose of life forms is to multiply and spread their DNA. Some religions have similar things with ideas like be fruitful, but they wouldn’t take it too extremes like what I said. Again this isn’t my beliefs. I’m just trying to argue with you too show that there is a secular/atheistic argument for not allowing gay marriage that is logical and not just “gays are icky” which is not a valid reason.

 

[Floridaman]

, could all of America get married in one massive joint filing? And I could go on. Overall, bad idea.

I thought we were, and we were beginning the process of a messy divorce

 

[WolfBear]

In the US? It'd be an absolute mess. Who's married to who, where does it end, could all of America get married in one massive joint filing? And I could go on. Overall, bad idea.

In California, at least:

How many legal parents can a child have in California? - Law Office of André J. Ausseresses, APC

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that allows children in the state to have up to three legal parents. The legislation overruled a long-standing precedent in California that said children can have no more than two legal parents. What parental situations does the...

ajafamilylaw.com

 

[Abhorsen]

Umm I’m sorry but I thought you said the government should stay out of marriage aka not recognize any?

Yes, which is why this being a question was odd:

You do realize government doesn’t have to recognize marriage?

I had already answered that as a no.

Again you could discriminate against those with the adoption thing if your goal is to entice the population to actually grow.

No, I don't think you could. Just having a goal is about passing the rational basis test, and it's honestly dubious that it could pass that, as the goal has to be a legitimate government end. Since it'd hit equal protection under the law (as infertile people can't have kids) there's a fair chance it gets struck just based on that.

If you call it marriage, then you go straight to heightened scrutiny per Loving v Virginia's multiple citations on the circuit courts, and it dies.

Yet it for 300 years a thing like gay marriage was never even thought of that doesn’t sound like a vital part of our national.

The right to marry in general (not just gay marriage) is the fundamental right rooted in history, as we can see in Loving v Virginia. The thing that makes same sex marriage valid is Bostock plus Reed plus Loving.

Marriage is a fundamental right from the nation's history, meaning that any restriction on it hits the due process clause and equal protection clause (Loving). So what type of restriction is a ban on same sex marriage? Bostock says at the very least, it is a sex based discrimination. And Reed says sex based discrimination is bad, meaning intermediate scrutiny applies. And a same sex marriage cannot survive such scrutiny.

Umm what are you talking about? This in no way violates the establishment clause because this has nothing to do with religion. I can’t think of any religion that says what I just said. I’m arguing off purely materialistic thought process where the primary purpose of life forms is to multiply and spread their DNA. Some religions have similar things with ideas like be fruitful, but they wouldn’t take it too extremes like what I said. Again this isn’t my beliefs. I’m just trying to argue with you too show that there is a secular/atheistic argument for not allowing gay marriage that is logical and not just “gays are icky” which is not a valid reason.

If you have a definition of religion designed such that it agrees with some religions not others, and taking into account that marriage was originally a religious institution, limiting marriage to hetero couples does implicate the establishment clause. It's not the strongest argument (by which I mean I have a stronger one), but it does work.

 

[WolfBear]

The right to marry in general (not just gay marriage) is the fundamental right rooted in history, as we can see in Loving v Virginia. The thing that makes same sex marriage valid is Bostock plus Reed plus Loving.

Marriage is a fundamental right from the nation's history, meaning that any restriction on it hits the due process clause and equal protection clause (Loving). So what type of restriction is a ban on same sex marriage? Bostock says at the very least, it is a sex based discrimination. And Reed says sex based discrimination is bad, meaning intermediate scrutiny applies. And a same sex marriage cannot survive such scrutiny.

It's worth noting that in this 1996 case, SCOTUS might have applied something closer to strict scrutiny to sex discrimination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia

But it's largely beside the point.

 

[Cherico]

Gay marrage has the same advantage that interacial marrages do.

Once you have a few states that allow it, its pretty much impossible to enforce rules where your marrage is legal in one place and illegal in another. The Gay community actually went out and had the conversation and changed minds its a done issue they won, personally I see it as a good thing and a victory for tradition in the long run.

Because having people who were outside the insitution of marrage weakened it, now we have a bunch of people who bought into the system which makes it stronger.

 

[WolfBear]

Gay marrage has the same advantage that interacial marrages do.

Once you have a few states that allow it, its pretty much impossible to enforce rules where your marrage is legal in one place and illegal in another. The Gay community actually went out and had the conversation and changed minds its a done issue they won, personally I see it as a good thing and a victory for tradition in the long run.

Because having people who were outside the insitution of marrage weakened it, now we have a bunch of people who bought into the system which makes it stronger.

Agreed with your analysis but I would also like to point out that same-sex marriage opens the door to same-sex divorce.