tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post112570077481596227..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Rational Basis and Gay RightsDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1126125420790541132005-09-07T13:37:00.000-07:002005-09-07T13:37:00.000-07:00On Lawn:I wrote a response in your comments.On Lawn:<BR/><BR/>I wrote a <A HREF="http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/04/marriage-equality-now-part-3.html" REL="nofollow">response in your comments</A>.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1126120830533512712005-09-07T12:20:00.000-07:002005-09-07T12:20:00.000-07:00First, Anonymous...Saying, "well that justifies Po...First, Anonymous...<BR/><BR/><I>Saying, "well that justifies Polygamy" doesn't disprove the legal neccesity for recognition of homosexual rights but well...justifies Polygamy.</I><BR/><BR/>And that is the argument here, its a reductio-ad-absurdum. When you take the argumentative justifications for recognizing same-sex unions as marriage and extend them you should get the same results. But as Dan Savage and others have noted, same-sex marriage does not apply to polygamy, and that becomes a contradiction.<BR/><BR/>The contradiction does two things, it makes us question the validity of the argument, or it makes us question the intentions of the arguer.<BR/><BR/>Should a real distinction be made between same-sex "marriage" and polygamy, and that distinction be valid in extending marriage regognition to one set and not the other then of course no contradiction exists. But as of this writing I've not seen it.<BR/><BR/>David,<BR/><BR/><I>First, I've noted before my confusion as to why homosexual rights cases are adjudicated under the "rational basis" test. It seems somewhat clear that laws discriminating against homosexuals, at the very least, meet the guidelines for applying "heightened scrutiny.</I><BR/><BR/>With either level of scrutiny, I don't think you will find that the equal gender representation requirement of marriage violates the civil rights of people to practice homosexuality. <A HREF="http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/04/marriage-equality-now-part-3.html" REL="nofollow">I've said this previously</A>...<BR/><BR/>"Applying the standard of equal representation to the debate about marriage one will note that any person no matter their gender preference has the right to marry. The only way marriage disadvantages those with same-gender preferences is how it violates their sexual preference -- which by any other name is still gender discrimination. In other words, same-sex marriage advocates do have access to marriage, what they are seeking after is the right to a marriage consisting of only one gender. And that is not equal gender participation.<BR/><BR/>"The attempt to set up marriage in the image of sexual preference will create three separate and not-equal classes of unions, man-man, woman-woman, and man-woman. Each with different capabilities, goals and needs. In order to try to make man-man or woman-woman as advantaged as a man-woman relationship the state will be unequally burdened in providing third party assistance for child bearing, and various social enforcement. And since the social norm of raising your own children is at odds with a marriage of sexual preference, it too will have to be marginalized actively by government social programs.<BR/><BR/>"Hence those that want sex marriage as a conduit to government privileges without the requirement of equal gender participation wish to have extra entitlement to the state's resources. Extra entitlement since that would be the requirement to be fully homogenized with traditional marriages. Some look at this and see attack on the civil rights movement, but it is not. In fact, equalizing the entitlement from government to blacks and whites so there was no privileged advantage to race was and is the very goal of civil rights."<BR/><BR/>Professor J David Velleman notes how equal protection, when applied to children's rights, precludes the ability of the state to fully equalize homosexuality with heterosexuality...<BR/><BR/>"The problem that prevents me from supporting same-sex marriage has now broken into the American press. As reported here and discussed here, a gay-rights organization in Massachusetts has argued that, with the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state, Massachusetts birth certificates should replace the labels "Mother" and "Father" with "Parent A" and "Parent B": [...]<BR/><BR/>"As the Canadian bioethicists Margaret Somerville has pointed out, the right to marry is enshrined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "the right to marry and found a family". Marital rights generally go hand-in-hand with parental rights. Any legal acknowledgement that the children of same-sex marriages have a third, biological parent would stigmatize those marriages, as leading to less than full-fledged parenthood. Equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriages may therefore require us to deny that donor-conceived children have both a mother and a father, thereby expunging the children's connection to half of their biological past. Such an arrangement violates a right enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents”. (The Implementation Handbook for the Convention makes clear that the word 'parents' in this statement refers in the first instance to biological parents.) I have argued for this right in several previous posts. [...]<BR/><BR/>"It would affect only a small percentage of heterosexual marriages, and it would be no more prejudicial to their parental rights than openness in adoption, which is now widespread. But a requirement of openness in donor conception would affect all homosexual marriages as a class. Homosexual marriage would be, by its very nature, marriage that can lead only to qualified parenthood -- qualified, that is, by the legally recognized parenthood of donors or birth parents. Maytbe same-sex couples would be willing to accept a form of marriage that is second-class in this respect -- but I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>It should be noted that same-sex marriage is not about equal protection as much as it is equalization, which is a status granted to very few groups, the handicapped for instance. Such equalization means that they are given more protection than others, and such status is up to those arguing for the equalization to prove. In other words, whether rational or strict scrutiny, it is up to those seeking the extra resources from the government (unequal protection) in this case the homosexual community to provide a rational or better reason.<BR/><BR/>One that justifies the taking away of rights from children.On Lawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10016822063573312097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1126075042172687822005-09-06T23:37:00.000-07:002005-09-06T23:37:00.000-07:00Brilliant piece Dave. The only think I'm not sure ...Brilliant piece Dave. The only think I'm not sure about is why polygamy is materially different from homosexual civil unions. I completely agree that it isn't a particularly good argument against gay marriage. But what happens when three people love each other and want to get married- some one is left out and prevented from accessing equal citizenship on the basis of, concievably, their identity. There is a third conclusion here of course... even if we grant the polygamy arument- agree that declaring gay marriage a constitutional right also prevents us from arguing against polygamy- then Dafydd still hasn't provided any reason here for rejecting homosexual civil unions. <BR/><BR/>At the turn of the 18th century renowned philosopher Thomas Taylor published A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes, a parody of Wollstonecraft's manifesto on women's rights. Taylor simply took Wollstonecraft's arguments and replaces "women" with "brute". As it turns out this satire provides most of the arguments later taken up by the animal rights movement.<BR/><BR/>Saying, "well that justifies Polygamy" doesn't disprove the legal neccesity for recognition of homosexual rights but well...justifies Polygamy. <BR/><BR/>-jackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1125966148298843672005-09-05T17:22:00.000-07:002005-09-05T17:22:00.000-07:00Whichever way you argue it, and it has taken a wh...Whichever way you argue it, and it has taken a while and three to wend my way through this, but I think I get the gist, there are two words that are incompatible in this debate -<BR/><BR/>"homosexuality" and "rational"<BR/><BR/>NZ took the (rational in my view) approach of the "Civil Unions Act" giving a general option other than religious marriage to everybody and not just single sex partners.<BR/><BR/>Now with the elections upon us, and the "rational right" (oxymoron I know) to be wooed for votes we have the "we will repeal the Civil Unions Act" pledge. Why? Because it has been used by some 85 couples since its coming into law. Apparently that is not enough to justify the distinction between religious and non-religious options.The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.com