From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:00:26 MST
Loree Thomas wrote:
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I'd have to contest some of this. lgbt
> > individuals have the same right to marry someone of
> > the opposite sex just as straights do. Giving
> > lgbt individuals the right to marry someone of the
> > same sex, while not conferring the same right to
> > hetero individuals, is a violation of the
> > equal protection doctrine.
>
> Huh?
>
> If same sex marriages are ever made legal, I doubt
> you'd have to prove your homosexual orientation to get
> a marriage license anymore than you now have to prove
> heterosexual orientation to get an opposite sex
> marriage license. IOW, of course heterosexuals would
> have the same "right" to marry same sex partners that
> homosexuals now "enjoy" to marry opposite sex
> partners.
>
> You must be making a point I am completely missing.
Well, lets take, for example, a scenario where an employed woman is in a
healthy and public hetero relationship with a man in town, and has a
widowed mother with a significant health problem that needs the support
of insurance benefits that she is not able to afford herself. The
employed woman decides, under the hypothetical 'marry anybody' law, to
marry her mother in order to obtain the desired benefits for her. Since
the town clerk knows the woman is in a hetero relationship with a person
other than her mother, the application for marriage license is denied.
>
> > Furthermore, even
> > conferring this right on
> > heteros still discriminates against sibling and
> > parent/child,
> > aunt/uncle/neice/nephew/cousin couples, whereupon
> > you wind up legalizing
> > the sort of garbage that NAMBLA promulgates.
>
> I never did like "slippery slope" arguments too
> much... and this one seems worse than most.
>
> Incest and statutory rape are two completely different
> things, yet you seem to be equating them.
The point is that no matter what you think, the state DOES, in fact,
regulate what human relationships are legal and illegal, and therefore
it DOES, in fact, discriminate and violate the equal protection rights
of SOME portion of the population regarding marriage laws, so,
therefore, the use of the equal protection clause to justify gay
marriage (which is the only legal argument used) is entirely unjustified
and hypocritical so long as gay marriage proponents support laws against
these other sorts of relationships.
>
> BTW, isn't heterosexual statutory rape allowed in some
> states as long as the parents of the minor involved
> give their consent to the marriage?
It's only statutory rape if someone claims a statute is violated.
>
> I just googled "marriage age". According to
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm,
> in Vermont the statutory rape of sixteen year old
> girls is perfectly legal... as long as the parents of
> the girl give their permission and the male and his
> victim go through the meaningless rituals proscribed
> by religious and/or secular authorities.
>
> It's even worse in Kansas... 12 year old girls are up
> for grabs.
You forget that if it is legal, then it's not statutory rape.
>
> Damn those queers at NAMBLA for wanting the same
> rights with regards to the age of their sex partners
> that heterosexual men enjoy.
>
> > When it comes to marriage, it needs to be recognised
> > that it is very much a discriminatory institution,
>
> Why is it a discriminatory institution and even more
> importantly why does that need to be recognized?
It is dicriminatory in that so long as ALL possible human relationships
are not legalized under marriage statutes, marriage statutes DO, in
fact, discriminate against some percentage of the population. You can
deny it, but that doesn't change the facts.
>
> > and discriminatory for a signficant purpose,
>
> What purpose? If you are talking about the conception
> of children (anything else makes no sense at all) then
> this (exi list) seems an odd place to put forth this
> argument. We routinely discuss technologies that make
> a traditional heterosexual marriage superfluous to
> conception.
Of course. But such technologies do not currently exist, and the
standard in law is that you don't change a technology dependent law
until the technology has, in fact, changed.
>
> > so use of 'equal protection' arguments by lgbt
> > couples/advocates is simply hypocritical.
>
> "hypocritical"? Even assuming some basis for your
> primary assumption, I don't see that this particular
> conclusion follows.
Claiming a right to marry same sex partners, under the equal protection
doctrine, while denying the right for any other person to marry anyone
they want for any reason they want (including those proposed by NAMBLA),
is hypocritical. At least be honest about it.
>
> Loree
>
> P.S. I read in the Mike Mailway column yesterday <
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/mailway/article.asp?id=54180
> >
> that it is against the law to paint your house in
> Vermont. Is that true?
Don't know about that. I do know that it is illegal in SOME Vermont
towns to paint your house a different color without the approval of the
planning/zoning/conservation boards (pick one). This is primarily to
reduce the incidence of goofballs painting their homes with freaky
colors like purple or fluorescent orange, colors that would likely
detract from the value of neighboring homes. For example, I know of one
lesbian woman who moved in from New York City, bought a really
attractive home in downtown Thetford and proceeded to have it painted
lesbian violet (with a few prominently placed 'delta' insignias) as a
statement of her status. She is currently in a protracted legal battle
with the town government and her neighbors over this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST