US Supreme Court recent rulings

Many here seem to be unable to put their finger on why it is perverse other than because they inherently ‘believe’ it should be. So this is my opinion.

Every action in the world has some good that can possibly result. Marriage between man and woman is sacred because although there is desire involved, there is also a higher purpose as there is a potential to create something. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand is perverse – and similar to rape/incest/bestiality – because it is desire for the sole means of acting on desire. Being openly gay is a public expression that one views himself foremost as a physical being as there is nothing positive that can come from same gender relations.

Jf: what you say about roommates – if they want to announce their love for each other, they can buy BFF necklaces and wear them every day. It’s quite different to believe that they should get marriage benefits because of their love. Marriage is a step toward creating a family – creating our (all of mankind’s) future – which is why it makes sense for the government to grant those benefits. (So gays can adopt…I hear)

All that being said, no one is denying their feelings for each other much like one can’t argue with an engaged couple that the feelings aren’t real as ‘true love only comes after marriage’. Instead, my contention is the following: I believe it is perverse because 1) it belittles marriage in general by saying it marriage is nothing more than an expression of love rather than a sacred union, and 2) it is announcing to the world without leaving any room for doubt that ‘I don’t think through through my brain but rather through what will offer me more pleasure’.

Honestly, I can’t see a legal reason for the US to not rule this way. If they are ruling on marriage at all, then they are clearly deciding that marriage is not a religious concern (otherwise it would be covered by the establishment clause). If it’s not a religious issue, then who cares how you define marriage? In Japan, people marry their cars. Let people here marry whomever or whatever they want. It’s a meaningless piece of paper now, so what’s the big deal?

heretohelp,

It depends on how you use the “slipperly slope” argument. Arguing because we allowed A we will allow B is unconvincing.

Arguing that just as you agree we can prohibit B, we can also prohibit A is a convincing argument.

If, as the Supreme Court held, moral disapproval is not a valid basis for prohibiting something, then it is very hard to justify why bestiality, poygamy and incest (where both parties are adults) can be prohibited. The other reasons given for prohibiting those acts, like those regarding mishkav zachor, do not hold up to an serious scrutiny.

GAW wrote:

“It is not a “slippery slope argument”. It is a fantasic loophole in the tax code that could save families millions of dollars. I don’t expect these marriages to be “real”, but real enough for tax purposes (as the two parties do care for each other, etc.) that the IRS would have a hard time fighting it.”

It is not a fantastic loophole. It is impossible. Such a marriage is already illegal in New York and elsewhere. West Virginia I’m not so sure. The recent rulings have nothing to do with the ability to marry your children. Stop being ridiculous.

GAW wrote:

“What law prevents Christa Badger from “marrying” Jacqueline Mars (her mother) and thereby circumventing any and all estate taxes? And when it comes to money, people will try anything to not pay taxes. Here it might work (I’m not giving a tax opinion, ask your accountant).”

In New York State, New York State law prevents a mother from marrying her daughter. Every state has a similar law. And what does this have to do with the recent rulings- why weren’t mothers marrying sons and fathers daughters prior to the recent rulings?

For your reference, the NY law is Article II, Section 5 of New York’s domestic relations law.

I think the toeiva aspect of this has gotten you all riled up that you can’t think straight.

heretohelp: I fully expect that to be challenged in court as

discriminatory. Even now, let’s say it was two brothers for health benefits (which is not blocked by the law you quoted).

heretohelp: I’m not arguing that point at all (and my point has nothing to do with slippery slope or even why Toeiva should be outlawed). All I’m saying is that it seems to me that SCOTUS has just created a great tax loophole (not as a legal opinion). You are disagreeing that it would work as a tax dodge.

Your points are reasonable, but I think (but I don’t know) in a court (especially in California) they would not be upheld. I would like to see (and expect) someone to try it.

benignuman: WADR, animal cruelty comes into play as well.

“The real poll was that the people of California passed Prop 8.”

Actually, the real poll was the 2010 California Gubernatorial election. Jerry Brown, while Attorney General, chose not to defend Prop 8 in court. Californians enthusiastically supported that decision by electing him governor by a landslide — by a much larger margin than had approved Prop 8 in the first place. (Maybe they changed their minds?) Interestingly, Brown’s 2010 Republican opponent, Meg Whitman, now supports same sex marriage, too.

“The DOMA case was about a federal law that defines marriage for all federal purposes as being between one man and one woman. The Court held this unconstitutional as a deprivation of the rights of those who want to marry someone of the same gender. This was a substantive ruling.”

This is one that split Movement Conservatives. On the one hand, they hate gays (or at least they feel they have to pretend that they do; I don’t think their heart is in this one). On the other hand, they also hate the Estate Tax and the plaintiff was a woman who was trying to get a refund of over $300,000 she had paid in Estate Tax.

“The defenders of Toeiva marriage here, namely, ‘heretohelp’ & ‘jewishfeminist02’, can only bring a defense for bestiality, but they have no argument why polygamy is illegal.”

Excuse me. Please read what I actually wrote.

1) I did NOT defend gay marriage. I merely explained what those who defend gay marriage commonly argue in the context of explaining what we can respond to them so as not to be painted as homophobic religious extremists.

2) I already explained that the difference between gay marriage and bestiality is not the same as the difference between gay marriage and polygamy.

3) I also already explained that polygamy should remain illegal because of a “legitimate state interest” in that the federal government does not want to have to pay health benefits for Ploni’s 200 spouses.

Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t “hate” gays. This is a highly ideological canard widely used by the left to delegitimize not only political opposition to gay marriage, but also religions (such as ours!) that disapprove of homosexual behavior.

We don’t hate gays at all — we just disagree on what the proper response is to people’s same-sex desires (embrace them and normalize them vs. ignore or suppress them and refrain from acting on them).

In fact, many opponents of toieva marriage have expressed great caring and compassion for those with same sex attraction, because it must a very difficult nisayon, and very hard to know what to do about it. This comes across very clearly in some Orthodox rabbinical statements regarding homosexuality (many of the signatories of which are certainly against gay marriage).

yytz,

Just saying something is absurd without explaining why is conclusory and pointless.

The only mildly valid (relevant) distinction I have ever heard is animal cruelty (as if hunting for sport was fun and games for the animals). While that distinction holds up in some cases, it doesn’t hold up in the cases I mentioned above. Which is why far left “moral philosophers” like Peter Singer have said that bestiality is morally sound in those cases.

Peter Singer is merely being consistent and willing to admit that bestiality does not always harm the animals involved.

I agree that comparing the two sounds absurd but that is only because people are comparing them on a macro level (the same way they used to compared heterosexual relationships to homosexuality). If one drills down to the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lawrence and Windsor, the distinction shrinks away.

I don’t think these rulings will lead to bestiality becoming legal (because, boruch Hashem, there are very few practitioners), but if we take take the position that moral disapproval cannot serve as the basis for laws, then outlawing all forms of bestiality is hypocritical.

Contrary to your assumptions, it is not the case that any law expressing some kind of moral disapproval is now prohibited. Virtually all of our laws, including those against murder and tax evasion, express moral disapproval.

This is how it works. If a law (such as those against bestiality) do not burden a protected group, then rational basis review applies. Bestiality practitioners have never been recognized as a vulnerable social group. That means that courts will uphold anti-bestiality laws as long as there is some rational basis for them. There is a rational basis for laws against bestiality, because animals cannot give consent and it can harm animals. No court would disagree with this.

Regarding polygamy, as I mentioned, bans on it do seem to express animus towards a politically unpopular, vulnerable group, which means that strict scrutiny review applies. This means that courts can only uphold if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. This is a much harder test, but ultimately I think courts will uphold it. This is not to say they should — it’s just a prediction.

Health, I agree that promoting homosexuality could reduce the pool of mates (depending on the relative rates of homosexuality among the genders). I also think the ban on gay marriage not only has a rational basis (many bases, really), but also is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. However, as a practical matter, courts are not adopting these arguments, in part because, unfortunately, it’s not generally seen as politically correct to make arguments against a group (such as gays) seen as an underdog. That’s an unfortunate feature of our country’s messed-up political discourse.

I enjoyed reading Scalia’s dissent in the DOMA case, and I largely agree with him, but I don’t think this case will directly lead to the Supreme Court forcing all states to have toieva marriage, at least not anytime soon. Kennedy’s federalism concerns will keep that from happening, I think. The important thing is who replaces the next few justices who retire.

yytz,

Although the Supreme Court normally uses the rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny framework it has not done so in Lawrence and Windsor. It has never held that homosexuals are protected group warranting special protection and it has never held that sodomy was a fundamental right. Rather Justice Kennedy has eschewed the normal framework for an inquiry focused on the motivation behind the law. If that motivation is soley or even primarily moral disapproval or animus then the law is invalid.

Alternatively put, moral disapproval is deemed by the Court not to be a “rational basis” and if that is the primary basis, the motivating factor, of a law that restricts people’s freedom then that law would be unconstitutional.

It is true that most prohibition express some moral disapproval, but those prohibitions will primarily motivated by other grounds, i.e. to prevent some harm that will come to someone or to create some efficiency.

Dude, romer was rational basis.

“And how does allowing Toeiva marriage not harm those seeking mates? Marriage is more of a commitment, but before this even if they were Toeiva prone these relationships could and would end and the possibility of becoming straight again is much more likely than once there is legal marriage.”

This is absolute nonsense. Even in states where gay marriage is prohibited, there are many gay couples who have lived together for decades and consider themselves to be “married” even if the state doesn’t. They’re no more likely to break up than they would be with an official marriage license.

Furthermore, sure, those relationships *can* end. But even when they do, the gay people will just find new partners, or engage in sexual activity outside of relationships. There is no way to “become straight again” because homosexuality is biological.

No straight woman in her right mind would ever want to be married to a gay man.

I see what you’re saying, though I don’t agree completely. An “unpopular group” has in fact been a term used by the Court. See this sentence from Windsor:

The thing about practitioners of bestiality is that they’re not really a “group” in any recognizable way; they’re just people who happen to all have some desire or practice in common. For this reason I don’t think the Court would take seriously their complaints of being discriminated against. Gays, by contrast, have everyone treating them as if they’re a full-fledged race. (Toeiva advocates can barely talk about their issues without invoking race metaphors.) This doesn’t make sense — it’s just how it is. They see themselves as a social group and so does the law.

It’s in Kagan’s interest (as a member of the hard left of the Court) to spin this case as primarily being about moral disapproval, because that’s a broader concept than animus and it increases the likelihood that Windsor will be used as a precedent to impose toieva marriage everywhere.

Windsor does use the term disapproval (once). But Windsor says a lot more than moral disapproval — it also mentions animus, bare desire to harm, etc. Even if there is some great unexplained significance to the term disapproval, it doesn’t mean that any laws based on moral disapproval are invalid. Rather, it would mean that laws based on moral disapproval that are meant solely to harm the disapproved-of group call for heightened scrutiny or are invalid.

The funny thing is that the Court’s decision does not say whether it is applying rational-basis or heightened scrutiny, while Scalia’s dissent seems to argue that the majority either employed rational-basis review or was a substantial-due-process case in disguise, and Alito’s dissent says the Court used some kind of heightened scrutiny. Confusing indeed. I believe Kennedy is known for his confusing opinions — this case will certainly support that aspect of his reputation.

This is absolute nonsense. Even in states where gay marriage is prohibited, there are many gay couples who have lived together for decades and consider themselves to be “married” even if the state doesn’t. They’re no more likely to break up than they would be with an official marriage license.

Actually, gay relationships are usually very different than straight relationships in fundamental ways. Importantly, they do not have the same concept of exclusivity with one’s partner. This is not controversial and not debated. So to compare the relationships is kinda silly.

Furthermore, sure, those relationships *can* end. But even when they do, the gay people will just find new partners, or engage in sexual activity outside of relationships. There is no way to “become straight again” because homosexuality is biological.

That is a nice opinion. I don’t know why you declare it though as if undisputed fact. It is in no way known that homosexuality is biological in the way you mean (I think the better word for what you mean is congenital.)

“Under Lawrence bestiality laws should be unconstitutional.”

I don’t think so. The Lawrence court emphasized the fact that the sodomy was consensual. See this quote from Lawrence:

“The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused.”

And how did popa become such an expert on homosexuality?

Same way he became an expert on everything else.

10% paying attention to the world, and 90% boich.

yytz,

Bestiality can be consensual too. In fact it can be initiated by the animal (there is a Gemara in Kesubos that describes such an occurence and my understanding is that this is not uncommon [relatively speaking of course]).

That being said, I can see a distinction between the two. However, I do not believe that distinction (the greater potential for abuse) is the reason why we treat the two differently. The real reason is that we find it perverse, disgusting and morally deplorable.