Appeals Court Strikes down Indiana and Wisconsin Same-Sex Marriage Bans

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
A quote from another thread:

I think it's proper to call traditional marriage (i.e., between a man and a woman) "traditional" since it has existed for nearly 20 centuries, don't you?
A quote from an Appeals Court Judge:

"Tradition cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition."
With that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down Indiana's and Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage bans, and very scathingly at that.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/09/04/345886831/appeals-court-strikes-wisconsin-and-indiana-same-sex-marriage-bans

Appeals Court Strikes Wisconsin And Indiana Same-Sex-Marriage Bans
by Nina Totenberg
September 04, 2014 6:07 PM ET

The U.S. Court of Appeals covering much of the Midwest has become the third federal appeals court to strike down gay-marriage bans — this time in Wisconsin and Indiana.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee, said that Wisconsin and Indiana had given the court "no reasonable basis" for forbidding same-sex marriage. Indeed, he said, "The only rationale that the states put forward with any conviction is ... so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously."

Two other federal appeals courts have reached similar conclusions: the 10th Circuit, which struck down gay-marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, and the 4th Circuit, which struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. All three cases are being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is widely expected to take on the issue before the end of its current term in June.

As to the Indiana and Wisconsin cases decided on Thursday, Judge Posner wrote that at their "deepest level" they are about "the welfare of American children." The argument that the states "press hardest," he noted, is that they "seek to encourage marriage" between a man and a woman as a way of protecting children who can be the product of accidental pregnancies. And, he said, states argue if the biological parents aren't married, the children are often abandoned to a single parent or foster care. "Overlooked by this argument," said Posner, is that many of those children are adopted by homosexual couples, and "would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married."

The tone of Posner's opinion was almost as scathing as his questions were just 10 days ago when the two cases were argued. Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be "pressured" by government encouragement to marry, he said in Thursday's opinion, but gay couples, unable to produce children, "are model parents ... so have no need for marriage." Or put another way, said Posner, the states' position is that "heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children," and their "reward is to be allowed to marry," while homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children, and their "reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure."

Piling on, he said that the states' "claim that conventional marriage is the solution to the problem of accidental pregnancies" is "belied by" the empirical data on out-of-wedlock births. If the states' policy of channeling accidental births into marriage were working, said Posner, one would expect a drop in the number of these births. But the evidence is to the contrary. In 1997, the year Indiana enacted its ban on gay marriage, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 33 percent; in 2012, the most recent year for which there are statistics, that number had grown to 43 percent. In Wisconsin, those numbers were 28 percent and 37 percent.

Posner also rejected the states' argument that the ban on same-sex marriage helped to foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman. That argument, he said, "runs head on" into the Supreme Court's 1967 decision striking down a ban on interracial marriage. "Tradition," he said, "cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition."

"Obviously many people are distressed by the idea or reality" of same-sex marriage, said Posner. But mere distress is not enough to justify the ban on gay marriage.

Joining Posner's opinion were Judge Ann Claire Williams, named to the appeals court by President Clinton, and Judge David Hamilton, named to the appeals court by President Obama.
Unanimous from this Appellate court. This may cause Louisiana to revisit their recent ruling.

BL.
 

DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
Universe 0 Timeline
A quote from another thread:



A quote from an Appeals Court Judge:



With that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down Indiana's and Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage bans, and very scathingly at that.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/09/04/345886831/appeals-court-strikes-wisconsin-and-indiana-same-sex-marriage-bans



Unanimous from this Appellate court. This may cause Louisiana to revisit their recent ruling.

BL.
Not sure what you think you've proved given what we were discussing. I never claimed that "traditional marriage" trumped the laws regarding marriage. On the contrary, my point is that by making marriage available in forms other than the traditional man and woman pairing, we're sliding down that slippery slope wherein it won't be possible to legally deny marriage to just about anybody with a non-traditional lifestyle (polygyny, polyandry, incestuous, etc.).
 

DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
Universe 0 Timeline
So what is your issue with that?
I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
Not sure what you think you've proved given what we were discussing. I never claimed that "traditional marriage" trumped the laws regarding marriage. On the contrary, my point is that by making marriage available in forms other than the traditional man and woman pairing, we're sliding down that slippery slope wherein it won't be possible to legally deny marriage to just about anybody with a non-traditional lifestyle (polygyny, polyandry, incestuous, etc.).
Extremely poor argument. Two loving consenting adults should NEVER be denied the most important part of their life because someone else doesn't like it.

How would you like if I voted on your marriage? Not so much.

There is not one single valid logical argument against gay marriage. Not one. Period.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
You yourself admitted that only 1-5% of the US population is gay. And since gay marriages tend to happen between gay people, well...

...it won't exactly lead to the collapse of the traditional concept of the nuclear family now, will it? There won't be enough people engaging in the practice to make it a widespread issue.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
Studies show otherwise: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168

Not to mention in many places an entire family or entire village raise children. The idea of the "Atomic family" being ideal holds no water.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,441
United Kingdom
I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
Giving people equal rights is not an experiment. Nothing is going to happen to your ability to raise children. The sky won't fall despite how much I can see you want it to.

The U.S. marriage rate has been declining for decades and continues to do so. It is evident that fewer and fewer people seem to think a traditional marriage is necessary to raise children in the best way.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Extremely poor argument. Three+ loving consenting adults should NEVER be denied the most important part of their life because someone else doesn't like it.

How would you like if I voted on your marriage? Not so much.

There is not one single valid logical argument against plural marriage. Not one. Period.
I figured "why not"
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Not to mention in many places an entire family or entire village raise children. The idea of the "Atomic family" being ideal holds no water.
Yeah, I wanted to bring up boarding schools in England, where wealthier, well-to-do couples let someone else do it, ultimately only playing an indirect part in raising their child.

A man and a woman raising a kid isn't the only way to do it. A single dad can do it, or a single mom, or a school, or the village, or an institution. Two dads or two moms isn't exactly stretching the concept of child-rearing to its breaking point.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Are you continuing to make this point because you support multi-spouse marriage or because you're attempting to argue against same-sex marriage?
I'm arguing that if we're going to change the definition for one group, we can't really disallow another group to re-define marriage to suit their desires. Either there is a right to marry the person you love or their isn't. The fact that you may already be in-love and married to another person you love should not matter as long as all affected parties are cool with it.
 

bagelche

macrumors 6502
Nov 2, 2007
434
0
Western Mass.
Not sure what you think you've proved given what we were discussing. I never claimed that "traditional marriage" trumped the laws regarding marriage. On the contrary, my point is that by making marriage available in forms other than the traditional man and woman pairing, we're sliding down that slippery slope wherein it won't be possible to legally deny marriage to just about anybody with a non-traditional lifestyle (polygyny, polyandry, incestuous, etc.).
Slippery slopes like the polygyny found throughout the bible? It's been well documented that what we call "traditional marriage" has a whole lot of variety just within Western cultures, even setting aside that other cultures exist and have their own traditions and evolutions of those traditions.

The notion of a traditional marriage isn't a convincing argument unless one chooses to set aside both empirical historical knowledge and the text of the religious book upon which so many base this argument.
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,752
505
Hawaii, USA
Either there is a right to marry the person you love or their isn't. The fact that you may already be in-love and married to another person you love should not matter as long as all affected parties are cool with it.
The concept of marriage as a contract between two adults of opposite genders is being challenged for the gender restriction, not the number restriction. As we've discussing in another thread, changing one clause of the agreement (gender restriction) does not automatically mean that the other clause (numbers) is free to change, as well. We've also discussed the logistical problems that would arise by removing the restriction of marriage being between two adults; such problems do not arise by removing the gender restriction.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,441
United Kingdom
Either there is a right to marry the person you love or their isn't.
So you support this court ruling?

Arguing for multi-spouse marriage is not an argument against same-sex marriage. Either way, from what you have written, I can't see how you can be against this court ruling, among the dozens of others. I just want to make sure of your view on same-sex marriage because so far you have not wrote it explicitly.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,744
I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
That's pretty bold for an unfounded assertion.
 

DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
Universe 0 Timeline
Extremely poor argument. Two loving consenting adults should NEVER be denied the most important part of their life because someone else doesn't like it.
Extremely poor argument. When you take away traditional marriage, then ALL forms of marriage have to be accepted. "Two loving consenting adults"? Why not ten? Twenty? How DARE you keep a dozen men and women who love each other from tying the knot?

How would you like if I voted on your marriage? Not so much.
Not my problem since I'm in a traditional marriage. But if I was living a non-traditional lifestyle, no doubt I'd want everybody to accept it as the norm.

There is not one single valid logical argument against gay marriage. Not one. Period.
There are plenty of logical arguments, but there hasn't been enough time to gather statistics to prove their validity. In a generation or two, we'll know if kids raised by two mommies or two daddies fare as well as those raised by a mommy and daddy.
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,752
505
Hawaii, USA
Extremely poor argument. When you take away traditional marriage, then ALL forms of marriage have to be accepted. "Two loving consenting adults"? Why not ten? Twenty? How DARE you keep a dozen men and women who love each other from tying the knot?
The logistics of adjusting marriage to allow for same-gender marriages isn't really any different than "traditional" heterosexual marriage. The logistics of allowing the number of individuals in a marriage to go beyond two are very different. This is why the claim that "all" other forms of marriage is moot: logistics.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
The concept of marriage as a contract between two adults of opposite genders is being challenged for the gender restriction, not the number restriction. As we've discussing in another thread, changing one clause of the agreement (gender restriction) does not automatically mean that the other clause (numbers) is free to change, as well. We've also discussed the logistical problems that would arise by removing the restriction of marriage being between two adults; such problems do not arise by removing the gender restriction.
If we're willing to change on clause to accommodate a different type of marriage, then we need to be prepared to change other "clauses" to accommodate other types of marriages too. And we need to figure out logistics because logistical difficulty isn't a good enough reason to deny someone their constitutional rights.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
There are plenty of logical arguments, but there hasn't been enough time to gather statistics to prove their validity. In a generation or two, we'll know if kids raised by two mommies or two daddies fare as well as those raised by a mommy and daddy.
Why would they turn out any different? I mean you're saying these things, but you're not doing anything to back up your claims?

What exactly is it about a same sex marriage that would somehow damage a child? How would it be any different than, say, a dad and an uncle raising their kids? A mom and an aunt?

Even if you don't have any proof, at least explain the reasoning behind why you believe what you believe?
 

DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
Universe 0 Timeline
You yourself admitted that only 1-5% of the US population is gay. And since gay marriages tend to happen between gay people, well...
I "admitted it"? Too rich! I pointed out how far off your ludicrous claim that gays made up 10% of the population were.

...it won't exactly lead to the collapse of the traditional concept of the nuclear family now, will it? There won't be enough people engaging in the practice to make it a widespread issue.
It's not just gay marriage. Once you've opened marriage to anyone other than between a man and a woman, there are no legal limits on who can marry once he or she is an adult.

----------

The logistics of adjusting marriage to allow for same-gender marriages isn't really any different than "traditional" heterosexual marriage. The logistics of allowing the number of individuals in a marriage to go beyond two are very different. This is why the claim that "all" other forms of marriage is moot: logistics.
You're using logistics to deny a person's RIGHT to get married?! Shock.

----------

Why would they turn out any different? I mean you're saying these things, but you're not doing anything to back up your claims?

What exactly is it about a same sex marriage that would somehow damage a child? How would it be any different than, say, a dad and an uncle raising their kids? A mom and an aunt?

Even if you don't have any proof, at least explain the reasoning behind why you believe what you believe?
There's plenty of statistical data on traditional marriages, for example, it's better to be raised in a stable family with a father present. That's some of what we've learned after thousands of years examining traditional marriages.

The stats on whether it's harmful for kids to be raised in same-sex families is far more equivocal. There just hasn't been enough time to gather data.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I "admitted it"? Too rich! I pointed out how far off your ludicrous claim that gays made up 10% of the population were.
Yeah, by "stating" as much, you've admitted your belief that gays only make up 1-5% of the population. If you didn't believe it, then why'd you say it?

It's not just gay marriage. Once you've opened marriage to anyone other than between a man and a woman, there are no legal limits on who can marry once he or she is an adult.
Yeah, because if a human being can marry another human being, the only logical conclusion is that pretty soon we'll all be marrying moon rocks, buses, and apache attack helicopters, right?

Now make sure you point out the ridiculousness of my hyperbole, and ignore any salient points I've made.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
There are plenty of logical arguments, but there hasn't been enough time to gather statistics to prove their validity. In a generation or two, we'll know if kids raised by two mommies or two daddies fare as well as those raised by a mommy and daddy.
Why wouldn't they?

A good parent is a good parent. Being heterosexual doesn't automatically make someone a good parent.

And for homosexuals, having children can sometimes be an expensive, complicated process. We choose to do it. No accidents here.

In my case, my partner had to go through the adoption process before she passed away. They checked our home, our finances, our jobs. Everything.

An excellent case can be made that the children of homosexuals are being raised in more stable environments.

And if you have any questions, you're welcome to come to Houston and meet my children. To even imply they may not "fare" as well because I'm a lesbian is ridiculous and offensive. And absolutely ignorant.