Oh my gosh, my head is going to explode if I read another gay marriage article! Give it a break.

Actually, you fail to realize that gays and straights DO have the exact same marriage rights, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you say “Well, they don’t have the right to marry the person they love,” well, that’s true, but neither do straight people, as the idea of “love” is NEVER mentioned anywhere in marriage statutes.

I’m sorry, but if you’re looking for the SCOTUS to do anything on gay marriage, you’re going to have to probably wait at least 17 years. The current SCOTUS, very simply, would not find gay marriage to be a constitutional right. I do not think Justice Kennedy would be a reliable swing vote in that area. The composition of the Supreme Court likely won’t change until Scalia or Thomas retire. They aren’t going to retire in the next eight years, and if another Democrat follows Obama they’ll try to hold on until the 2024 election. Should a democrat win again, then we might get a retirement of those two and a significantly more liberal SCOTUS.

Actually, Hannah, I think it would be good to watch gays and lesbians squirm for awhile. They’ve been real a-holes over the past few years, especially that bitch Rosie O’Donnell. I can’t believe they’re letting her have her own show! Like we haven’t been tortured enough already?!

Should there be ANY restrictions on who can marry who?

Should the state sanction marriage between any two individuals?

Would civil unions be enough or should religions be forced to accomodate any marriage between any two individuals?

PS. The Christians and Mormons although against gay marriage, don’t seem to calling for the murder of gays. Shouldn’t there be some protests against religions that mandate murder of all gay people?

Should ‘marriage’ include the unions of father and daughter, mother and 3 daughters, 5 siblings, a child and an adult, 3 adults and 5 children? By the current claims of “violation of civil rights” purported by the homosexual crowd, anyone seeking any of these unions would have their “civil rights violated” by not being allowed to ‘marry’ and share the economic benefits concurred on a hetrosexual male husband and female wife.

Why not have marriage of an individual to a tree, or a car, or a snake? Then the individual could share insurance and estate privleges with their “partner”. Surley their supposed ‘civil rights’ should be supported as well??!!

You don’t have to invoke religion of any sort to show that their claim of ‘civil rights to marry’ is just nonsense.

A shtudent who does poorly in logic and instead shtudies philosophy will almost always improve when she does spend time shtudying logic. Sometimes, a parent or a tutor must press the shtudent to do this.

Back to the books, Ms. Shtein!

Is this really a 14th Amendment issue as you pretend? As you point out, the amendment says: “No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But then, very quickly, you finish your syllogism by saying: “Proposition 8 is proof of the fact that some states cannot, or will not, understand that the legal limitations same-sex couples face make their unions “inherently unequal” to heterosexual partnerships.”

Of course, as any elementary logic student recognizes, this is a case of equivocation. In the 14th Amendment is “equal protection” is afforded to every “person,” but then you shift the term to apply to “couples” and “partnerships.” The Constitution says NOTHING about presumed “rights” possessed by “couples” or “partnerships.” Couples don’t have rights, individual people do.

Every adult citizen of the U.S. is entitled to marry another adult citizen as individuals. No homosexual “person” is denied the individual right to marry, and exercising that right does not require the redefinition of “marriage” as between one man and one woman. In other words, any homosexual man is free under the law to marry one woman. Any homosexual woman is free to marry one man.

But by shifting the locus of “rights” to “partnerships” and “couples” you aim to accomplish what cannot be done by direct reason — a redefinition of the legal and social institution of “marriage.” Indeed, the argument is one of definition, not “rights.” And, only by relocating “rights” can you manage to ignore the essential element of the marriage definition: a relationship that produces and nurtures children. It has always been defined this way in law from the foundation of civilization.

Homosexual “marriage” cannot accomplish that, and to suggest that gay unions are somehow the same as heterosexual marriage is to suggest a blurring of logical categories that is absurd, for it leaves out the very thing that distinguishes marriage from all other interpersonal “partnerships.”

Of course, as well, as soon as you dispense with that essential constitutive element, you have no grounds upon which to object to all manner of “partnerships” claiming “equal” protection. Are five or ten people or a hundred in a “marriage” partnership also entitled to “equal protection?” Who are you to deny them on the basis of your numerical bias in favor of a “couple?”

3:10, most of the other restrictions on marriage (bigamy and incest) could point to other policy reasons to not allow those marriages that opponents of gay marriage cannot. Bigamy and incest are rife with abuse, largely towards young females. A lot of those situations really seem to be more along the lines of institutionalized rape of adolescent girls. There are major concerns as far as any real form of consent is concerned.

Beyond that, a lot of your examples are completely preposterous. A marriage requires consent from both parties. As I stated before, there are a lot of concerns with actual consent in the cases of bigamy, incest, and marriage to minors. A car, a snake, a tree, or any other non-human animal, plant or inanimate object are completely incapable of consenting. Gay marriage, very simply, has no consent concerns, and no greater policy concern except that a lot of people either find it icky or it is against their religious beliefs. Neither are good grounds for making a policy argument.

Dear 3:10,

Philosophy IS logic. Kthanksbye.

Anonymous 3:57pm,

Your response is the most cogent and eloquent rebuttal of the specious “marriage is civil rights” claim by homosexuals I have had the pleasure of reading in the last 6 months.

You restore my faith that a quality education, as well as people of integrity and self respect, can still be found within the hallowed halls of UW - Madison.

Excellent! Excellent!! Excellent!!!

To Anyonymous @ 8:40am: “Actually, you fail to realize that gays and straights DO have the exact same marriage rights, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

Using this exact same logic, a law which only allows marriage between two people of the same race treats everyone equally as well. If you were a consistent person, you would also have to agree with the following statement: “If everyone only had the right to marry someone of the same race, then everyone is being given the same rights. If everyone is given the same rights, then there are no problems with the law.”

So, I sure hope you disagree with yourself and realize that your argument is an unsound one.

Sorry, 3:57, your theory was debunked when the Supreme Court held that laws banning interracial marriages violated the 14th Amendment about 4 decades ago.

Needless to say, no one here has shown any understanding of the 14th Amendment. Please, kiddies, leave the serious discussion of the 14th Amendment to judges, lawyers and law students. And I say this to politicians as well. Most of you don’t understand it, so please don’t mess with it.

1908: Blacks and whites have equal protection. They each can marry any member of their own race under the existing laws. There is no reason to change the existing laws to redefine marriage.

@3:57,

You are pedantic—at best. So childless “marriages” are not really marriages by your reasoning? Your pretentious reply aside, you still have not disproven Hannah’s point regardless of your fresh out of logic 101 deductive reasoning.

While we’re at it, is there anything else we should ban gays from doing? Since gays are the minority, it is our duty as majority to oppress them, right?

Seriously, let’s have a vote to make them do something really super silly, like maybe wear stars on their shirts, or maybe we could gather them all together into a fun-sized summer camp… ha! that is just comic gold.

“Bigamy and incest are rife with abuse, largely towards young females.”

So add an age limit for young females - problem solved. Oh wait, that would be sexist. And ageist too I suppose.

My dad could have saved a LOT of money if he’d been able to marry my spinster sister and get on her medical insurance.

8:40 here.

I never said I agree or disagree with any law, I’m simply sick of hearing people say that homosexuals don’t have equal rights. In the case of not being able to marry out of your own race, that was a prohibition for EVERYONE, and thus everyone was equal, just as EVERYONE has the same rights when is comes to marrying someone of the opposite gender.

So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.

949a

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about when you start spouting off random numbers (how the hell did you come up with 17 years?).

Either way though, there is strong evidence to suggest that you are empirically wrong about J Kennedy. Kennedy’s opinions on equal rights for gays in previous cases (namely Romer v. Evans where he was the majority opinion) suggest strongly that he would vote against Prop 8. Like Prop 8, the constitutional amendment in Romer aimed to put gays in a different position than the rest of the population. Kennedy looked to the impact on gays, despite not naming them as a suspect class, as support for the invidiousness of the regulation. That’s a good sign for gay rights advocates, because it was even defeated under RATIONAL basis review.

Yeah, it’s not a guarantee, but no case is. What is important though is that Kennedy’s strong language in the opinion provides some solid support that he would go that way again.

3:57

“Couples don’t have rights, individual people do.”

Well that might be true under a strictly textualist interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately for you, that’s not the only, nor the always correct, way of interpreting it. Using your interpretation, which mind you abides by no constitutional norms outside of what you think is right (which is NOT the way to frame what is ultimately a legal argument) you’ll still be incorrect because you fail to consider the fact that standards do exist beyond mere conjecture to analyze these issues.

Here are a few ways you’re wrong:

First - couples do have various rights that are recognized under the constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy, which has been well regarded and upheld since.

Second- you shift the focus, incorrectly, away from the individual. The issue is not the couple, it is the person. A person who is denied the same protection as another because of who they are will immediately trigger 14th amendment considerations. How much protection they are afforded is a matter of law that is difficult to understand with our murky jurisprudence on gay rights.

In the case of gays, it likely falls under a 14th amendment rational basis test. Whether that’s right or not, it still has to survive a determination of whether it is arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. It likely is given our constitutional history ranging from Loving to Romer and Lawrence.

Third, gays are denied the right to marry gays. A quick review of Loving v. Virginia will remind us that denial of the rights to do certain things that others can do, can be a violation of the 14th amendment. In Loving a statute which barred blacks from marrying whites because of the state’s interest in the “racial integrity” of white citizens was struck down because it violated the 14th amendment due process clause. Sure, blacks could still marry anyone they wanted, provided they weren’t white. And better still it applied equally to everyone. Whites and Blacks were equally discriminated against. But you see, when you specifically carve out an exception based upon who the person is, you’re treading on difficult constitutional grounds and are likely liable of discrimination.

In this case, gays are denied the right to marry other gays. What your sexual orientation is matters greatly in your decision of who to marry, and for the state to proscribe your ability to be who you are, it effectively removes your liberty. That’s an important consideration behind 14th amendment analysis, and you’re missing that big time.

Point is, you can muddle this all you want with 14th amendment considerations that you think are important, but you’re totally wrong on the law. In the end that’s what matters when you’re arguing law. I suggest you peruse some case law because there are some arguments (Scalia’s dissent from Romer) out there that might defeat Ms. Shtein’s arguments, but you’re certainly not hitting any of them with your blathering.