Originally posted by groverat
What name did I call you?
It was a general statement. I've replied to more than you. I specifically mentioned Tonton called me a name. You simply declared I lied.
Loving v. Virginia establishes that marriage is a fundamental right. Of course it doesn't say anything about homosexuality, I never claimed it did.
You tried to bring it in as justification for restricting homosexual marriage, which is absurd.
Actually, wrong again. On the very first page of this thread it was first mentioned by Tonton. It was cited in the decision by the California judge that started this thread in the first place. You will clearly see Tonton making the equal protection claim from Loving as a claim to support homosexual marriage. All I did was show that this reasoning is false. Loving doesn't address homosexual marriage and I have said that claims that it supports it are wrong.
Loving only addresses attempts to equally punish parties who wish to marry for purposes of procreation, but who the state would desire not procreate. I've stated that this concern is not valid with homosexual marriage.
The reasoning by the judge in the first post, as cited by Tonton, was that since since the 14th amendment provides equal protection, and since Loving vs. Virginia shows that racial mixing is not a valid rationale for preventing two parties from marrying, then it is not valid to prevent the same gender from marrying.
That is a pretty large logical leap for me and it should be for you too. Miscegenation clearly related to mixing races with offspring. Anyone who has studied the history of the South and especially the reasoning of "one drop" and ancestrial bloodlines clearly understands the intent of those laws was to segregate races and insure segregated offspring as well.
The reason it was cited is because it is an instance where individual rights overrode the state interest in defining licensing terms for marriage. The court agreed that marriage is more than an individual right and that the state police power in this matter is not unlimited. However jumping from race to gender is a logical leap in this instance. The state was actively using it's police power to prevent people of different races from marrying and legally procreating. The state has not created any such laws nor are the prosecuting homosexuals for such actions.
What does any kind of marriage have to do with incest?
And past that it is fairly clear what I meant, which was clearly established in the first post of the thread and which you still haven't properly addressed.
This would be called you ignoring my point. The state has the right to legislate on matters of procreation or else incest would be legal. You can duck it but it does have the right. When the state can prove a rational basis, they can override the individual rights outlined in the 14th amendment.
The SC stated that marriage was a fundamental right and the only procreation regulation issue that came in with Loving v. Virginia was ruled not valid as a state interest.
And you still haven't provided a rational purpose for the prohibition of homosexual marriage. Now 6 pages later.
The racial regulation as ruled out as a state interest. Society reserveds the right to promote relationship types that insure positive procreation. If this were not the case, incest laws would be unconstitutional. The states pressing miscegenation laws did so because they thought biracial children were bad. The courts declared this rationale invalid because biracial children aren't bad.
However in the matter of states pressing incest laws, the rationale would be that sexual relations would be highly likely to produce deformed or malformed children. This case would be seen as rational and would override the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
So the government does have a right to legislate where procreation is concerned, regardless of what you want to believe. They have a right to act in societal interest and in the interest and rights of the children who will make up that future society. These rights can even override the 14th amendment equal protection rights and other Constitutional rights which is why I brought up the draft. Certainly nothing can deprive a man of more rights than being drafted to work for the government during a war. Yet the societal interest here overrides personal rights and even gender rights since it applies exclusively to men.
Societal interest, which some here dismiss as mob rule, is viewed by the court as a valid interest in matters of marriage licensing restrictions. Society deems it important for children to have adult guardians. That doesn't stop 12 year olds from having babies, but it does say we aren't going to endorse it and call it the standard by awarding it the title marriage.
Society has a right to define the standards it endorses and the words that represent those standards. This is true for marriage as well.