demagogue on 21/5/2008 at 18:50

---

But you could say the "if it's not genetic, if there's an environmental influence, it's not "natural"" argument is overblown also. The term "natural" is a politically charged category usually more about perception than biology, at least as it's used in political debate. I think that's okay, since it's also a political question, not just scientific, but people need to be open about it.

I wrote a class paper in favor of a right to gay marriage on equal protection grounds, although under the German constitution (which has a fundamental right to marriage written into the constitution).

Because I studied it, I can think of the opposing side, though. I hate to take up too much space to describe it, but it may be worth it for the record.
The argument isn't that gay marriage is wrong. It's that equal protection isn't the right way to get it.

Whenever you argue something on EP grounds, the core question you ask is if the __ability (whatever the law is about, why it creates a right) is really different among the groups. E.g., work-ability isn't different from blacks and whites, so it's an EP violation to keep blacks from certain jobs. Pee-ability is different between men and women, so it's not an EP violation to have more female bathrooms than male bathrooms in a building. (i.e., we're not looking at what anybody's opinion of what's "natural", or what's socially good. Just, does X group have an equal __ability which this right was created to protect?)

Here, the question is if marriage-ability is different between gays and straights. Then that throws you right at the definition or function of marriage. If you define it as "lifeterm sexual partner", the ability is the same (there are arguments it's different, but I'm not sure they hold much water); if it's "maintaining an important, historical cultural institution" the ability is different by fiat. Then those two things become the battlelines in the argument.

Then there's a meta-argument that, well, the argument seems to be turning on the proper function or purpose of marriage, which the current laws are ambiguous on; it's not really enforcing EP on the current laws as they stand. So the courts shouldn't really be the ones answering the issue, at least not under EP; it's the job of the legislature to identify a clear purpose of marriage where the __-ability is the same for gays and straights.

Then there's another argument that you don't have to care what the legislature thought because marriage is a "fundamental right" which exists outside of any legislation, which other Sup Court cases seem to have decided, although in another context. But that has problems here too because that still doesn't give you a clear purpose of marriage in this context, and it opens you up to the counterargument that, if it's so fundamental in the way you suggest, it must have been existing from the beginning of time (beginning of society, anyway); then how do you explain that no one "discovered" it until just the last few decades? And whatever you might find that you could argue makes it so fundamental, it's still hard to find a clear purpose on which to hang the "equal __ability" argument on. Where does a court "get" it from?
(The German constitution at least has the advantage of writing the right directly into their constitution. You can ask the guys that wrote it what they meant; unlike the US constitution, where the right is unwritten and more nebulous in the details ... then again, the UK doesn't have a written constitution at all.)

Even if you really support an outcome, people should pay attention to what a court can and can't do with ambiguous laws, because what works in your favor in one case can work against in you another. Since I think gay cohabitation is just as fundamental as straight cohabitation, I don't see any reason why the latter can be marriage but not the former; I'm happy with this outcome. But it would have been better if it were done by legislation than a court through EP. But then again people don't have the luxury to wait for that to happen; so it goes.

One thing though, there's a risk this issue may get pushed to the Supreme Court, and I can already tell they'll tend strongly towards the above anti-argument, which would find lack of gay marriage is not an EP violation on the laws as they stand, and then force that on all states. Then other laws can stand on that foundation and it only makes life harder for cohabiting gays in the end. Hopefully that won't happen, other state courts gradually come around, and the whole issue slides into history, taken for granted, like a lot of issues before it.

Starrfall on 21/5/2008 at 22:06

---

haHA but I have found a flaw with your plan how does gay reproduce to begin with answer me that (marriage is about babies)

Gingerbread Man on 22/5/2008 at 00:10

---

we are growing hordes of babies in clear plastic jars in the bathtub in five years we will conquer woodland that filthy helltown

Epos Nix on 22/5/2008 at 02:10

---

You might have a point if the Bible condemned gay people period. But in fact it only condemns men who have sex with other men.

Epos Nix on 22/5/2008 at 02:22

---

Try this:



Many of the laws in Leviticus have to do with personal and communal cleanliness. I think the idea of keeping one man's wang out of another man's bunghole follows this trend, but I could be wrong.