A question about the opponents of gay marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those who favor laws giving state recognition to only opposite-sex marriages have put forth non-religious reasons for doing so,

Nope!  That's why they've lost.  They can't say strictly, same-sex marriage should be illegal because of the Bible, so they've had to attempt to find a basis aside from religion or animus.  I would submit that the anti-SSM side has failed to do that.

Bedstuy, the opponents of government recognition of SSM have put forth non-religious arguments for their position.  You may not find them persuasive, and compared to the principle of equal protection, I don't either, but without the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no constitutional basis for a court to insist upon equal protection taking priority other concerns a legislature chooses to consider.

tho strictly speaking those reasons aren't necessary as nonrecognition is not a punishment,

No.  That's not how the American legal system works.  Where are you getting that from?  When you just boldly make stuff up, I can't really have a discussion with you.  The 14th Amendment applies to the entire body of law, right?  But, you've decided that it only applies to punishments or penalties from the government?  OK.  In your fantasy land, maybe you have a point, but I thought we were discussing the real world.

Why were you bringing up the 14th, we were discussing the 1st. And as I already pointed out, the 1st is not an absolute ban on religion in government.  Speaking of the real world, the government is all the time choosing to provide benefits to some and not to all.  Indeed, without that ability to discriminate between recipients, much of the machinery of the modern welfare state would be effectively too expensive to implement.

It isn't the First Amendment that does those laws in, but the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

OK, that's not what I said.  I said that the First Amendment limits the permissible bases for banning gay marriage, specially excluding the basis, "Christianity forbids sodomy." 

We were discussing same-sex marriage, not sodomy.  The two aren't the same.  The non-religious reasons for not recognizing same-sex marriage have not dependent upon the idea that sodomy is in some way bad.  (Tho some do advance that argument, it is not the only argument.)

I think one difference in what we are talking about is that you are assuming marriage requires government recognition to be a marriage, and I'm definitely not making that assumption.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Joint tax filing
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Right to change surname upon marriage
Renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

wulfric, i'm really confused as to why you think a gay relationship isn't in and of itself sinful, but a gay relationship that enjoys these benefits is…

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Joint tax filing
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Right to change surname upon marriage
Renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

wulfric, i'm really confused as to why you think a gay relationship isn't in and of itself sinful, but a gay relationship that enjoys these benefits is…

Would it be any different than someone who thinks abortion is a sin but that government shouldn't prohibit it?  By your way of thinking all Roman Catholics should either support banning abortion or find another church. That said, it is an awfully odd list.

[bedstuy]

Bedstuy, the opponents of government recognition of SSM have put forth non-religious arguments for their position.  You may not find them persuasive, and compared to the principle of equal protection, I don't either, but without the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no constitutional basis for a court to insist upon equal protection taking priority other concerns a legislature chooses to consider.

They don't have something that meets the rational basis test.

Why were you bringing up the 14th, we were discussing the 1st. And as I already pointed out, the 1st is not an absolute ban on religion in government.  Speaking of the real world, the government is all the time choosing to provide benefits to some and not to all.  Indeed, without that ability to discriminate between recipients, much of the machinery of the modern welfare state would be effectively too expensive to implement.

The 14th Amendment is the relevant law in regards to legalizing same-sex marriage.  The 1st Amendment is the relevant law in disqualifying a purely religious justification for purposes of rational basis review under the 14th Amendment.  They're both relevant to what I said.

In regards to your other point, you just made up a distinction that doesn't exist outside of your head. 

Just play this out, can the government provide welfare benefits to brown haired people but not red haired people?  No.  There's no rational basis for excluding people based on hair color.  Could they provide not welfare benefits at all?  Sure.  Can you refuse to grant zoning variances to gay people?  No.  Can you refuse to grant zoning variances at all?  Sure.  There's no idea that you can discriminate however you would like as long as you're not explicitly punishing someone.  You just made that up! 

We were discussing same-sex marriage, not sodomy.  The two aren't the same.  The non-religious reasons for not recognizing same-sex marriage have not dependent upon the idea that sodomy is in some way bad.  (Tho some do advance that argument, it is not the only argument.)

I think one difference in what we are talking about is that you are assuming marriage requires government recognition to be a marriage, and I'm definitely not making that assumption.

You're living cuckoo-crazy land dude!

We are talking about lawsuits against government entities which recognizes marriage.  Either the result of that is the government recognizes your marriage or it doesn't.  You could have a commitment ceremony or a zoning variance "in your heart," it wouldn't matter vis-a-vis the government.

If you have a law, with no premise, besides its congruence to a religious doctrine, you have an unconstitutional law. 

Listen we can argue about whether gay marriage bans meet the rational basis test.  I think there are somewhat logical arguments to that effect, even if they fail on a factual level.  You haven't made any, you just insist that rational basis review either:
-Doesn't imply to non-penal legislation
-Can be satisfied by resort purely to a particular religious doctrine and nothing else.

On both counts, you're blatantly, blatantly wrong.  You can throw pedantic ticky tack chestnuts around and be obtuse as much as want, you're wrong.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Joint tax filing
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Right to change surname upon marriage
Renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

wulfric, i'm really confused as to why you think a gay relationship isn't in and of itself sinful, but a gay relationship that enjoys these benefits is…

Would it be any different than someone who thinks abortion is a sin but that government shouldn't prohibit it?  By your way of thinking all Roman Catholics should either support banning abortion or find another church. That said, it is an awfully odd list.

but he listed a whole bunch of other rights that he thinks aren't sinful for gay couples to have…?
and besides, i think it would be more like someone who thinks abortion isn't, in and of itself, a sin but that government shouldn't really allow it

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

bedstuy, the problem with rational basis is that there never has been an objective definition of it.  It always is what the court thinks it is.  I come at this from the viewpoint of a democratic libertarian (small d and small l).  I don't think the government should do too much, yet I also think that unless there are objectively determinable reasons, the judiciary should defer to the legislative (or the executive as the case may be) in deciding what is to be done and leave it to the voters to correct problems.

The only other point of yours I wish to address is where do you get the idea that the 1st amendment is ever needed (or used) to support the 14th amendment. The only way I could see you thinking so would be if by some odd reason you neglect the 9th amendment so that only explicitly named groups get equal protection, in which case same-sex couples would be out of luck.  But beyond that, the 1st amendment has been and continues to be used to exclude religious groups (and now thanks to Hobby Lobby, religious people) from being required to engage in equal treatment.

(As an aside, while Hobby Lobby produced an absurd result, once the Obama administration allowed religious groups to opt out of the contraceptive mandate on the basis of a religious objection in hopes of defusing a political hot potato, the Hobby Lobby result was fairly inevitable given Citizen United's view that legally corporations are people too.  The free exercise clause is an individual right, not one enjoyed only by organized religious bodies.)

[bedstuy]

bedstuy, the problem with rational basis is that there never has been an objective definition of it.  It always is what the court thinks it is.  I come at this from the viewpoint of a democratic libertarian (small d and small l).  I don't think the government should do too much, yet I also think that unless there are objectively determinable reasons, the judiciary should defer to the legislative (or the executive as the case may be) in deciding what is to be done and leave it to the voters to correct problems.

Oh, you don't like the 14th Amendment.  Quick, somebody inform the Supreme Court!

Screw what you like or don't like.  Easy for you to say that individual and minority rights are less important than judicial restraint and letting the states decide whether fags are gross or whatever.  You're a straight, WASP man.  Individual rights wise, you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.  Come to think of it, that silver spoon might be shoved up the other end pretty deep. 

Gay people aren't asking for anything but equal rights under the law.  This pedantic hemming and hawing is pathetic honestly.  You can't even bring yourself to make the counter argument.  You look a the scales of justice, "Gay people's human dignity and equal protection under the law, hmmmm, pretty important vs. well, actually, maybe there's some colorable counter argument and what about the state legislatures getting overruled by the courts, they'll be sooo sad about that!!!"  Give me a break.

The only other point of yours I wish to address is where do you get the idea that the 1st amendment is ever needed (or used) to support the 14th amendment. The only way I could see you thinking so would be if by some odd reason you neglect the 9th amendment so that only explicitly named groups get equal protection, in which case same-sex couples would be out of luck.  But beyond that, the 1st amendment has been and continues to be used to exclude religious groups (and now thanks to Hobby Lobby, religious people) from being required to engage in equal treatment.

(As an aside, while Hobby Lobby produced an absurd result, once the Obama administration allowed religious groups to opt out of the contraceptive mandate on the basis of a religious objection in hopes of defusing a political hot potato, the Hobby Lobby result was fairly inevitable given Citizen United's view that legally corporations are people too.  The free exercise clause is an individual right, not one enjoyed only by organized religious bodies.)

What?  This isn't about religious groups.  This is about marriage law.  I don't understand what you're talking about at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only other point of yours I wish to address is where do you get the idea that the 1st amendment is ever needed (or used) to support the 14th amendment. The only way I could see you thinking so would be if by some odd reason you neglect the 9th amendment so that only explicitly named groups get equal protection, in which case same-sex couples would be out of luck.  But beyond that, the 1st amendment has been and continues to be used to exclude religious groups (and now thanks to Hobby Lobby, religious people) from being required to engage in equal treatment.

(As an aside, while Hobby Lobby produced an absurd result, once the Obama administration allowed religious groups to opt out of the contraceptive mandate on the basis of a religious objection in hopes of defusing a political hot potato, the Hobby Lobby result was fairly inevitable given Citizen United's view that legally corporations are people too.  The free exercise clause is an individual right, not one enjoyed only by organized religious bodies.)

What?  This isn't about religious groups.  This is about marriage law.  I don't understand what you're talking about at all.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the 1st Amendment as if it has relevance to this issue.  The 14th is perfectly capable of dealing with it all on its own.  Also, don't confuse my dislike of the rational basis test with an opposition to striking down bans on the recognition of SSM.  Civil marriage today is a partnership of two individuals.  There's absolutely nothing in the definition used that is dependent upon the gender of the individuals involved.  Now, if we were back in the 19th century when the definition of marriage included distinct legal roles for husband and wife would not necessarily fall foul of equal protection.  (To the degree it would, it would only be because of a determination that limiting the role of husband and/or wife to only one gender failed equal protection.)

[bedstuy]

The only other point of yours I wish to address is where do you get the idea that the 1st amendment is ever needed (or used) to support the 14th amendment. The only way I could see you thinking so would be if by some odd reason you neglect the 9th amendment so that only explicitly named groups get equal protection, in which case same-sex couples would be out of luck.  But beyond that, the 1st amendment has been and continues to be used to exclude religious groups (and now thanks to Hobby Lobby, religious people) from being required to engage in equal treatment.

(As an aside, while Hobby Lobby produced an absurd result, once the Obama administration allowed religious groups to opt out of the contraceptive mandate on the basis of a religious objection in hopes of defusing a political hot potato, the Hobby Lobby result was fairly inevitable given Citizen United's view that legally corporations are people too.  The free exercise clause is an individual right, not one enjoyed only by organized religious bodies.)

What?  This isn't about religious groups.  This is about marriage law.  I don't understand what you're talking about at all.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the 1st Amendment as if it has relevance to this issue.  The 14th is perfectly capable of dealing with it all on its own.  Also, don't confuse my dislike of the rational basis test with an opposition to striking down bans on the recognition of SSM.  Civil marriage today is a partnership of two individuals.  There's absolutely nothing in the definition used that is dependent upon the gender of the individuals involved.  Now, if we were back in the 19th century when the definition of marriage included distinct legal roles for husband and wife would not necessarily fall foul of equal protection.  (To the degree it would, it would only be because of a determination that limiting the role of husband and/or wife to only one gender failed equal protection.)

I explained my point like 12 times dude.  Go back and read what I said if you're interested. 

And, another great point, it is the year of our lord two thousand and fifteen, not the nineteenth century.  Perhaps, we can assume that this can be taken for granted, unless we stipulate  otherwise?  I don't think there is a robust debate about whether it is currently 2015 or the nineteenth century.

[afleitch]

...which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If the state has an interest in procreation; i.e the having of and raising of children (and infertile, post menopausal couples sit aside from that 'just because'), yet you think its okay for gay couples to adopt, then why should children be given less rights than other children or be perceived as 'different' by law or by social convention, just because their legal parents happen to be of the same sex?

There are as much as 6 million children in the USA that live in such a situation. What have you got against them? Why should procreation/raising children - if that's what marriage is 'all about' only matter if their parents are of the opposite sex?

Nothing. No? Okay.