Marriage Equality

[CaviAck]

apparently Australia is a democracy ...yet the current leader of this democracy continues to reference his personal beliefs for his reason to not allow same sex marriage...doesn't sound very democratic to me...let the people of Australia decide...I've said my piece..enjoy your day

And that's how a democracy works. You elect a representative to voice an opinion that resonates with your's. The people elected not only Abbott but representatives in individual electorates that have resulted in the current government. Just because the current representatives don't represent your opinion doesn't mean they are not representing the majority's opinion. Whether Abbot references his personal beliefs or not, the people elected him as a representative based on his merit as a representative for the seat of Warringah. If you have a problem with his representation, take it up with the people of Warringah for electing an "idiot".


As or the US supreme judges, my understanding is that they're not making a new law but rather have interpreted laws in 13 states to be unconstitutional, and hence those states (and probably more importantly any other states looking at implementing similar laws) cannot outlaw same-sex marriage. Which would mean this interpretation of the constitution means as long as there's a legal right to marriage, same sex couples can get married. Correct me if I'm wrong but this means the judges did not create new law (as their powers do not let them to do so) but rather have interpreted the law that was created by the founding fathers of the USA that same sex marriage is legal. This of course means it can be changed with a referendum to amend the constitution at any time.

 

[Pushka]

1) but why should bigamy be illegal? If I love 2 people and they love me back, WHO ARE YOU to judge that and stand in our way?

2) homosexual couples do not have children. That is basic biology.

They do. There is surrogacy. AID. Adoption.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>


As or the US supreme judges, my understanding is that they're not making a new law but rather have interpreted laws in 13 states to be unconstitutional, and hence those states (and probably more importantly any other states looking at implementing similar laws) cannot outlaw same-sex marriage. Which would mean this interpretation of the constitution means as long as there's a legal right to marriage, same sex couples can get married. Correct me if I'm wrong but this means the judges did not create new law (as their powers do not let them to do so) but rather have interpreted the law that was created by the founding fathers of the USA that same sex marriage is legal. This of course means it can be changed with a referendum to amend the constitution at any time.

Thanks, I may stand to be corrected (and happy to be corrected when abuse is not involved).

I like dissenting Judge Scalia's comment re majority author Kennedy's opinions (NY Times):

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

Justice Kennedy: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

Scalia: “They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
“These justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry.”

 

[RooFlyer]

1) but why should bigamy be illegal? If I love 2 people and they love me back, WHO ARE YOU to judge that and stand in our way?

2) homosexual couples do not have children. That is basic biology.

They do. There is surrogacy. AID. Adoption.

I take your point Pushka, but minor pedant's correction . A couple 'having children' conventionally means that one is the biological father, one is the biological mother. As in "we are going to have a baby" . In surrogacy, AID etc, only one of the same sex couple can be the biological parent and 'have the child'.

 

[CaviAck]

Thanks, I may stand to be corrected (and happy to be corrected when abuse is not involved).

I like dissenting Judge Scalia's comment re majority author Kennedy's opinions (NY Times):

Both Kennedy's and Scalia's comments have merit. The issue now is that once these oversights are found, what is the Government going to do about it? If they do nothing than I do not see a problem with the majority interpretation. If they think that this interpretation is contrary to the intentions made when the amendment was signed into law, then as representatives of the people they should put forth a motion to have another referendum to amend the amendment.

Correct if I'm wrong but isn't Scalia essentially agreeing with the majority that it is "contrary to reason" to limit marriage to one man and one woman. What was Scalia's reason for dissenting?

 

[slc767338]

And that's how a democracy works. You elect a representative to voice an opinion that resonates with your's. The people elected not only Abbott but representatives in individual electorates that have resulted in the current government. Just because the current representatives don't represent your opinion doesn't mean they are not representing the majority's opinion. Whether Abbot references his personal beliefs or not, the people elected him as a representative based on his merit as a representative for the seat of Warringah. If you have a problem with his representation, take it up with the people of Warringah for electing an "idiot".


As or the US supreme judges, my understanding is that they're not making a new law but rather have interpreted laws in 13 states to be unconstitutional, and hence those states (and probably more importantly any other states looking at implementing similar laws) cannot outlaw same-sex marriage. Which would mean this interpretation of the constitution means as long as there's a legal right to marriage, same sex couples can get married. Correct me if I'm wrong but this means the judges did not create new law (as their powers do not let them to do so) but rather have interpreted the law that was created by the founding fathers of the USA that same sex marriage is legal. This of course means it can be changed with a referendum to amend the constitution at any time.

* That's how a representative democracy works.

One could argue that representative democracy is not true democracy that is so coveted by westernised nations - but that's another discussion entirely.

 

[trixydoza]

A couple 'having children' conventionally means that one is the biological father, one is the biological mother.

- "Do you have any children?"
- "Yes, a son and a daughter."

 

[Pushka]

I take your point Pushka, but minor pedant's correction . A couple 'having children' conventionally means that one is the biological father, one is the biological mother. As in "we are going to have a baby" . In surrogacy, AID etc, only one of the same sex couple can be the biological parent and 'have the child'.

AID (one parent being biological) and adoption (neither biological) for either is no different. Lines are blurred now.

 

[yohy?!]

Dont support gay marriage?

Simple - Dont marry a gay!

 

[CaviAck]

* That's how a representative democracy works.

One could argue that representative democracy is not true democracy that is so coveted by westernised nations - but that's another discussion entirely.

True, but in the context that we're arguing about the way our "democratic" system works, for all intents and purposes the representative democracy is our democracy. A true democracy however... not sure how that's going to work on a national level with populations greater than 100k, discussing bills and voting for every thing is going to take a lifetime and a half.

 

[Hvr]

1) <snip>

2) homosexual couples do not have children. That is basic biology.

And why is marriage just about children? I've been married and didn't have a child? So what? if you want to define marriage as only being about children then what about people who conceive outside of marriage? Would you make that illegal? Or an offence that if you haven't conceived after a certain period of marriage then you will be punished? It is a logical conclusion for some of the specious arguments be spouted.

My belief is that two consenting adults who are not already married should be allowed to marry. When (if) you find the person you want to be with in a loving nurturing relationship for the rest of your life then why can't they marry?

Their sexuality is none of my business. Indeed defining sexuality is a complex business and the standard binary male/female paradigm doesn't apply to everybody.

There are people who can be defined as intersex displaying the physical characteristics of both genders or have gender ambiguity. Again none of my business and society definitely should not have any say in who they choose to be intimate with once the basic criteria of consenting adults is met.

Or abolish marriage altogether and just let people define their own relationship without state interference.

As for the Animal Farm reference, yes I do understand that the basic premise is about equality and not bestiality. In the current state two heterosexual adults are more equal than others. Why isn't clearly stated but definitely there are people who are so threatened by things they don't understand that they will demean anybody who wants equality.

 

[RooFlyer]

Both Kennedy's and Scalia's comments have merit. The issue now is that once these oversights are found, what is the Government going to do about it? If they do nothing than I do not see a problem with the majority interpretation. If they think that this interpretation is contrary to the intentions made when the amendment was signed into law, then as representatives of the people they should put forth a motion to have another referendum to amend the amendment.

Correct if I'm wrong but isn't Scalia essentially agreeing with the majority that it is "contrary to reason" to limit marriage to one man and one woman. What was Scalia's reason for dissenting?

Scalia's words were very factitious - this was made clear in the NY Times article I quoted, but I omitted that, sorry.

NYT: In a second dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia mocked the soaring language of Justice Kennedy, who has become the nation’s most important judicial champion of gay rights.

From the (limited amount) of reading I've made Scalia believes in interpreting the law (in this case the US Constitution and its amendments) as it is written, not as a judge thinks it ought to be understood.

In the words of another dissenter, Roberts:

Chief Justice Roberts said the majority opinion was “an act of will, not legal judgment.”
“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”

Classic US court 'conservative' Vs 'liberal' stuff. And this is OK as long as the people cheering the court now don't mind having this ruling over-turned by another mix of judges in the future .

 

[dajop]

Whilst their is some argument one way or the other about the fact that Supreme Court judges do not represent the people my I ask who appoints the Supreme Court judges? And do the people not elect those that appoint them?

 

[CaviAck]

Scalia's words were very factitious - this was made clear in the NY Times article I quoted, but I omitted that, sorry.

Ah, that would make more sense.

From the (limited amount) of reading I've made Scalia believes in interpreting the law (in this case the US Constitution and its amendments) as it is written, not as a judge thinks it ought to be understood.

And that's the way it should be. A judge interpreting law as how they think should be understood is essentially giving them creative freedom to manipulate laws according to their own beliefs.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
And that's the way it should be. A judge interpreting law as how they think should be understood is essentially giving them creative freedom to manipulate laws according to their own beliefs.

Which is what lead majority judge Kennedy said (from same NYT article linked above):

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.” “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

or to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty:

When I look at what the Constitution means," the Judge said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

 

[Katie]

I take your point Pushka, but minor pedant's correction . A couple 'having children' conventionally means that one is the biological father, one is the biological mother. As in "we are going to have a baby" . In surrogacy, AID etc, only one of the same sex couple can be the biological parent and 'have the child'.

So, what happens when hetero adoptive parents have children?
What happens when hetero parents require some form of surrogacy, either egg donation or carrying the child, and there is no biological link to the woman married to the father, as she would not be the mother under this definition?

 

[RooFlyer]

So, what happens when hetero adoptive parents have children?
What happens when hetero parents require some form of surrogacy, either egg donation or carrying the child, and there is no biological link to the woman married to the father, as she would not be the mother under this definition?

It comes down to the pedant's definition of 'to have children' but I have no wish to get hung up on this aspect; its just personal interpretations (fortunately I'm not a Judge of the US Supreme court ). I've always taken that phrase to mean that the adults concerned were the biological parents - egg and sperm contributor. If they adopt a child (hooray!) they might say 'we've adopted a little baby' rather than 'we've had a baby'.

YMMV.

 

[JohnK]

I'll stay out of the debate.

What gets me is judges involved in making law. I can see how they clearly favour criminals in their decision making in Australia. I wouldn't want them involved in lawmaking in Australia in any way shape or form.

And yes I cannot understand how bigamy or polygamy is illegal. Who is going to take up that cause?

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
And yes I cannot understand how bigamy or polygamy is illegal. Who is going to take up that cause?

This situation is easily explained by going back to Animal Farm and paraphrasing:

"One marriage partner good and we call it equality, two marriage partners bad and we call it illegal."

 

[samh004]

2) homosexual couples do not have children. That is basic biology.

Where does the law say that to marry you must have children?

Is there a suggestion that marriage should only be reserved for those willing to procreate... boy what a can of worms that would open!