Talking Fairness

Loving v. Virginia is a famous court case in the late 1960s that made all state marriage laws unconstitutional that restricted marriage based on racial difference between the two marrying parties. However, the Loving ruling was misguided. The majority opinion, given by Chief Justice Earl Warren, made the conclusion that marriage was, “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” when in fact this is not causal. If Americans stopped marrying one another (not marrying any, regardless of nationality), the basic status of being alive or  existing for Americans (or for that matter man, humans, as a whole) would not be affected. The actual requirement for existence, sexual reproduction, is not so connected to marriage that, whereas marriage ceased to exist, so it would follow.

The Warren Court’s ruling also established (or reaffirmed) another principle, which some may wish to argue depends on the above clause;”fundamental to our very existence and survival.” This principle is the idea that, “[m]arriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’ ” And this, I concur. Marriage does seem fundamental in the ability of people to express their thoughts and feelings, which would be covered by the first amendment.

By that ruling, seemingly same-sex marital bans are not only an argument relevant to the 14th amendment, but added are relevant to the first amendment, as well.

Some have applied the right of marriage to the ninth amendment, which is more established legally, than a 1st amendment argument. And since it means the same thing regarding the 14th amendment, this is fine.*

But the misguidance in the majority opinion stating, “fundamental to our very existence and survival“ allowed the future ruling of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker V. Nelson, and such a ruling is the binding precedent on same-sex marriage bans regarding the U.S. Constitution, however wrong.

Justice Peterson of Minnesota opines: The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination.

And if a ban on same-sex marriage is not motivated by irrational or invidious discrimination, there is only one other motive for such a ban. The protection of the thing, as by law established, that is “fundamental to our very existence and survival“; marriage. The petitioners tried to say that under that notion of marriage that only a couple willing or able to procreate should be granted a marriage license. Not an entirely unruly argument, however, it is weak and vulnerable. The response of the justices was that this was imperfect; basically that it would violate the fourth amendment as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut. This can only be seen as the justices using the correct interpretation, the one of which should obligate them to accept same-sex marriage, of the law to dismiss the notion that procreation is fundamental to tradition marriage. Albeit the justices’ logic is inconsistent (like I said the petitioners’ argument was fair enough), my initial criticism of the legally establish notion of marriage as being connected to our existence seems to be more sound. *

In 1996, the Rehnquist Court, albeit Rehnquist dissented, ruled on Romer v. Evans, opening the door for argument in support of same-sex marriage beyond Loving v. Virginia. Justice Kennedy gave the majority opinion, which coincidentally could merely be pasted into the argument against the current state definition of marriage because it fits so perfectly. Justice Kennedy opined,

In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

This opinion made unconstitutional Proposition 2, a Colorado law that forbid anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Particularly interesting in regards to the argument in support of same-sex marriage is the last clause, “Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” The idea portrayed by the word ’safeguards’ seems very relevant to the idea of marriage. There are numerous benefits, as well as a few safeguards, given to an individual when he or she goes into a marriage, which because of the marital oaths that are required a homosexual person cannot do legitimately. Such an argument appears weaker than other arguments because homosexuals are still able, however illegitimately, to marry the opposite sex. And, perhaps unfortunately, the only route used to justify this argument affects polygamist marriages, as well. The justification for restrictions seemingly has to be involved to a degree of state’s interest. And while polygamy gets into a complicated bout over taxes, and social wellfare programs, same-sex marriages in no reasonable manner harms the interest of any state, and therefore excluding homosexuals from a marriage, other than those null and void is unconstitutionally irrationally discrimiatory.

*Stanza was added April 25, 2009

I have become torn between what I know is rightfully acceptable and what appears to be legal in the United States.

I know that it is right for a 90 year old man who is in his right mind to marry a 22 year old woman.

I know that it is right for a white man to marry a black woman, or vice versa.

I know that it is right for a rich woman to marry a poor man.

I know that all of these marriages should be acceptable regardless of what state the two people live, however, if a state was to amend its constitution to ban any of the above marriages, it seemingly would not violate the US constitution, and thus would be completely legal all around.

It seems clear that these things are discriminatory, but discrimination isn’t illegal on the face of it. Or is it?

Somewhat obvious, as none of the above are controversial issues, this is about same-sex marriage. It really tears me apart that there remains legal discrimination within this very good system simply because of the men and women who continue to control the system.

Regardless of how illegal is a law, it will never be overturned by judges who rule based on tradition, which is based on politics.

 State bans on same sex marriage is illegal, unconstitional, not because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, but because it discriminates based on sex, which is clearly covered in civil right acts and through supreme court rulings based on the 14th amendment. Well, that’s legally, but ethically, the 14th amendment should cover protection that includes things that are not harmful or illegal.

If Marriage is a 1st amendment right, which it really should be, then restricting marriage beyond doing so for the direct safety of human beings is unlawful infringement.

Obama’s activist church enters spotlight

I use this story to open the door to a new issue for me today. The Church the Democrat Presidental-hopeful Barack Obama attends a church in Chicago, and the pastor there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Now Rev. Wright and the Church he has established is very controversial. The church featured the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, who has said, among other things:
“White people are potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet .”
“The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. “

Now a church that awards such a figure is going to be as controversial as the awarded figure because such an action conveys that the church agrees with the sentiment of Farrakhan. Obama has, as a result of the relationship between Farrakhan and Wright, said many times that he disagrees with a lot of what Wright preaches.
So, my question is can anyone go to a church be correct in saying that it’s wrong to say that that church represents their beliefs?

If a preacher establishes a church that views homosexual behavior as acceptable, do people who disagree still attend that church?

To me it is a little like saying, “Well, I’m a member of the KKK, and I go to the meetings, but you know, their actions and words shouldn’t represent me. Cause you know, I really don’t have a problem with black people.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20199009/

I’ve still yet to understand why there’s conflict with the term ”marriage.”
The term is histotically religious based. Government doesn’t and shouldn’t force religion to marry anyone… So, I don’t know why Obama’s stance is so unacceptable; he said, “in terms of… the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.” Now, yes, if one doesn’t believe that he actually wants that then that’s another thing, but what is wrong with that? By all wakes of the law it would be a marriage, except the media would say civil union… You can still say that you are married, that’s covered by that little 1st amendment deal… Anyhow moving on…
Now I will not exactly get into how questionable it is to discriminate against homosexuality by religion, but I will say that it seems absolutely precivil rights to use religion as justification to discriminate against people. It’s very similar to the idea of blacks being subhuman, and everything of that sort. Many people seem to get stuck on the majoity rules and forget the very important second part “minority rights”. If the only argument against same sex marriage is invoking religion it seems absolutely obvious to me that it should be allowed by a secular government. Someone being attracted to the same sex doesn’t cause anyone unreasonable harm, so it should be accepted, which leads me to my next subtopic; gays in the military. 
   Sexuality doesn’t directly come into play when considering if a pesron will be an adequate soldier, but it does come into play. And yes it is a shame that if a gay man or woman cannot openly be gay and be a soldier because their rights are being infringed on… but there is a certain reality that makes it very negative for gays to be in the military. There are soldiers, a number of soliders, who have hatred for gay men, and with the number of military women who say they’ve been sexually assaulted, it just seems too harmful for the individual who is gay to be open about it at this time. To me, in this regard, it’s similar to the sex education debate. Because, in my mind, it’d be the best thing to do to teach kids that abstinence is the best thing, but there is a problem with that because they do not listen and so they have sex, some of them, only knowing that it’s frowned upon and have no idea the dangers, and thus one must ignore the right thing to do to try to resolve the conflicts of reality, but it is important to not lose sight of the right thing. So, the military shouldn’t just say that the problem is resolved and that’s that, because the fact that many soldiers would discriminate against a gay soldier is horrible, it’s reality, but the reality is horrible. So, work on fixing the reality but until then support things that deal with the reality.
   Gays in the military isn’t like samesex marriage. Same sex marriage in no way harms anyone, not the gays getting married, not the anti-gays who hate the idea. Open gays in the military will definitely hurt the gay soldier and might even hurt the military as a whole because of mistrust and a lack of comfort between the soldiers. I understand that I’m advocating taking someone’s rights away unjustly, but I’m more concerned with the physical well-being than I am of someone’s right to expression, at least in this situation.