[adthern]

I am interested in what interest the state might have in keeping gay marriage unlawful (in those states that do so)? I would like to have this be a reasonable discussion.

[excon]

Hello Ad:

There are some in government who believe it's their job to maintain Judeo Christian moral values, instead of defending the Constitution.. The people who don't measure up, they believe, aren't entitled to the right's you and I enjoy. I don't know HOW they come up with that conclusion, but they do.

Therefore, as wrong as they are, they believe they are doing Gods work, which is what they believe they were hired for.

Over the years these events have been discussed here, I've come to the conclusion that the right wing SAYS they believe in the Constitution, YET they maintain a LIST of people who don't qualify for its protections.. Gay's, Muslims, drug offenders, sick people, men who've been picked up on the battlefield, and to a lesser extent, people of color, are ON that list.

Of course, it's NOT in the states interest to DO that, but the state doesn't know it. I don't know why.

excon

[Capuchin]

Because if you keep it unlawful, you keep the votes of the (majority of the) christian sector? That would be my guess.

[Fr_Chuck]

Because those elected officials wish to keep their job in state government, In most of those states, the majority of people are against it, and if they were to do it, they would be voted out of office. They are following the wishes of the majority of the people.

In some of the states that do allow it now, it was not the state government that approved it, but it was forced upon the states by their states court.

[excon]

In some of the states that do allow it now, it was not the state government that approved it, but it was forced upon the states by their states court.

Hello Padre:

Living in the south, I wonder how long we would have had to wait for the state government to end segregation - or whether they would have ended it at all. It would be NICE if the states obeyed the Constitution. It would be NICE if leaders lead. But, they don't always do that. So, SOMEBODY needs to lead. Fortunately, our founders did just that. Indeed, the court's job is to review the constitutionality of the laws. When they find one, would you rather they DID something about it, or just make suggestions?

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

But that is an issue, marriage is not a constitutional issue, no matter how people try and make it a "right" It has only been the states court, using their power to force into law, things that their court does not have the authority to actually rule on.

[excon]

But that is an issue, marriage is not a constitutional issue, no matter how people try and make it a "right"

Hello again, Padre:

Well, that IS the issue, isn't it? Do people have a fundamental right to marry?

Plus, whether state judges ruled on issues they should have, or not, will become moot shortly, because the Supreme Court will soon rule on California's Prop 8.

If people don't have a fundamental right to marry, your argument will prevail. If they do, it won't. You've got the advantage too, with a right wing Supreme Court... Nonetheless, I think they'll rule in favor of gay marriage. I LOVE the attorney's representing gay people.

excon

[ScottGem]

Ok, I'll weigh in here (though everything is telling me to run for the hills). That marriage is a CIVIL union as well as a religious one. Because it is a civil union, there are rights and responsibilities conveyed on people who are married. Tax advantages, medical coverages, inheritance rights, property rights and other issues that are defined differently when one is married in the eyes of the state. It is those rights that non traditional couples are fighting for.

But I believe that excon, Capuchin and Chuck have stated the obvious. For too many people anything but heterosexual unions present an abomination that they can't abide by. And politicians whose constituents feel this way represent a majority have to listen to those constituents if they want to be re-elected.

[adthern]

I will take these in order,

Ex,

While I agree that there are those in government that push personal agendas, I am looking for actual rational basis reasons that the state can argue (incidently for all-state meaning all government bodies). [side note-the enemy combatant on the battlefield should in no way be afforded US constitutional protections].

Capuchin,

That is indeed a personal reason, but not a state interest.

Fr Chuck,

Again that is a politicians reason, but not a state interest. Your comment regarding it being forced on them by the courts is exactly the reason for my question (I take it you believe all decisions should be left to the electorate?).

Ex,

You are correct on the function of the courts. The fact that some Judges, even supreme court judges, are elected for a term instead of appointed or even elected for life works against the purpose of the court;s ability to check/balance.

Fr Chuck,

Marriage is not a Constitutional issue? If this were a discussion on the government forcing specific religious groups to marry people against their beliefs, I would totally be on your side here. The Government decides who may marry, much like Ex pointed out, it took the Loving V. VA case to allow whites and nonwhites to marry when clearly the vast majority in VA would vote to keep segregation in place.

Scott,

You hit the basis of my question, the point I was after is since the govt is denying a group rights under the law, they must, at least meet, a rational basis standard to uphold the law (Constitutionally speaking).

I understand that everyone has their opinion on the morality of homosexuality or gay marriage, that is not the point here (of my question). I am trying to transcend the "gut reaction" and examine what rational purpose refusing 2 wo/men the ability to legally marry. Because, if there is no rational reason behind the law, it is unconstitutional (and yes there is a Constitutional right to marry). The question has been decided previously by the US Supreme Court, but as to protected classes (like race) gays are not included, so they do not gain a higher standard.

Standards used in the Constitutional analysis are: Strict Scrutiny (discriminating based on race.\, ethnicity, or alienage), which means the state has a compelling reason and the law is the least restrictive measure and is narrowly taylored to achiceve that goal; Intermediate scruitny (discrimination based on gender or status as unmarried child [previously bastard]), which requires a middle tier reasoning, akin to a good reason and not over inclusive or under inclusive; and Rational basis (everything else) which is a very easy standard to meet all the state need show is a rational reason for the law (that is the standard I am applying here). If there is not at least a rational basis, the law should not stand, period.

I ask you to try and separate your religious beliefs from the answer, since I am fairly sure no one would wish to start adopting other religions beliefs (ie: sharia law) into the decision making process.

Thanks, Adam (I probably posted this in the wrong forum).

[excon]

I am looking for actual rational basis reasons that the state can argue

Hello again, Ad:

I find none. Therefore, since there's no compelling state interest in keeping gays from marrying, it must be struck down.

excon

[adthern]

Ex,

It doesn't need to be a "compelling interest" it only needs be a "rational basis." Though I agree, I can not imagine a "Compelling interest", I am curious if anyone feels there is one? National security, Doubtful. Public safety? I can't see how. Serious threat to public health? Nope.

The Court could find, that gays are a protected class, though if they do, it would likely be along the lines of an intermediate class (I think).

[excon]

Hello again, Ad:

You know more about those legal distinctions than I do.

In any case, what's interesting about your question is, for the first time, the people who oppose gay marriage are going to have to PROVE the things they say, instead of just saying them...

First and foremost would be their claim that gay marriage will DESTROY heterosexual marriage, or some such wording... Now, they have to back it up, and I don't believe they can. Even the wingers on the court will be swayed. Well, maybe not Thomas. He's an ideologue.

excon

[adthern]

Agreed, everyone has the right to their own opinion, right? Ie: gays will ruin the world, blacks are (fill in epiphet of your choice), women should be in the kitchen, etc..

However, when the govt starts to enforce these "beliefs" that's when there is a problem. It's funny, there is a radical group you may have heard of, the westborough baptist church, which has about the most radical beliefs when it comes to gays. While, I detest their belief I would defend their right to say them, but should they become governing powers and make laws to enforce their beliefs... stop the train, I want to get off.

[adthern]

That would be them, and I detest their actions... but they are a perfect example.