Is There A Legal Reason...

[Cambridge]

I take it then you think her son had no right to expect her mother to be smart and chose men much more wisely then?

did your first partner choose wisely? Are you still with her, or did you leave her?

Now what makes you think you deserve any personal answer form me when you cant give an opinion yourself?

I don't think her son can expect her to be perfect.

No ones perfect.
Point is... did she even take the right steps for her son?
Did she wait until she was older and more mature? NO
Did she have sex with a guy she had a commitment with? NO.
Did she date the guy for a few years to learn about him? NO.
Did she think of the consequences of those action with regard to the welfare of the child? NO.

Because of all those NO's... her son was deprived of even a decent chance of a loving home with his father in it.
So now the boy grows up with probably one of three philosophies...
Single parenting is OK because I was raised that way.
Or
F*** if I'm going to screw up my son's life by not choosing a partner wisely.
Or
Like so many women of single parents...Cynical to the whole family thing because it's a pile of S*** for the kids and never have kids that have to suffer as they did.

This sounds a bit like social psychology and research on “future orientation”. In other words, hb, what you are saying is you’ve got to make perfect choices—no room for error.

I suggest the following bibliography:

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: A genetic perspective. In S. Fiske, D.L. Schacter & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.) Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp.1-26.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, Vol. 6 (pp. 187-249). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Coleman, J.C. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cooper, C. R., Cooper, R. G., Azmitia, M., Chavira, G., & Gullatt, Y. (2002). Bridging multiple worlds: How African American and Latino Youth in academic outreach programs navigate math pathways to college. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 73-87.
Cooper, C.R., & Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal and community specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 559-584.
Frank, L.K. (1939). Time perspectives. Journal of Social Philosophy, 4, 293-312.
Gillespie, J.M., & Allport, G.W. (1955). Youth's outlook on the future: A cross-national study. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329.
Israeli, N. (1930). Some aspects of the social psychology of futurism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 121-132.
Israeli, N. (1936). Abnormal personality and time. New York: Science Press.
Kagitchibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kluckhohn, F.R, & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, & Co.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868-897.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social problems. New York: Harper.
Marcia, J.E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J.E. Marcia, A.S. Waterman, D.R. Matteson, S.L. Archer & J.L. Orlofsky. Ego identity: A handbook for psychological research (pp. 3-21). New York: Springer Verlag.
Nurmi, J.E. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1-59.
Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seginer, R. (2003). Adolescent future orientation in culture and family settings. In W. Friedlmeier, P. Chakkarath, & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Culture and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zietlinger Publishers.
Seginer, R., & Halabi-Kheir, H. (1998). Adolescent passage to adulthood: Future orientationin the context of culture, age, and gender. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 309-328.
Seginer, R., & Schlesinger, R. (1998). Adolescents future orientation in time and place: the case of the Israeli Kibbutz. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 151-167.
Super, C.M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. Human Development, 45, 270-274.
Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Future orientation and socialization. International Journal of Psychology, 18, 381-406.

Wasn't this thread about gay marriage?

[myron myron]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

[Cambridge]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

And for once we agree, myron. That is the point of this thread. Going back to the first or second page, here is what I wrote:

What is that Fred, nine posts…mostly in a row…and long ones, too. And still you fail to answer Sharon’s question.

Actually, Sharon, there are many legal reasons: the laws that states have passed—California and New York among the –are legal in nature. But is there a valid state or public interest that supports these laws? Massachusetts says no. Hillary Goodridge, et al. v. Dept. of Public Health. California’s is up before the state Supreme Court right now. The California Court is expected to rule in early June whether to affirm or overturn Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro. California is the largest state in the US and it’s determination of this question is gonna be influential. New York says yes, but in doing so it erases half of its State Constitutional equal protection clause. Hernandez v. Robles.

It’s actually 50 of 50 states…what you mean is that Massachusetts has already set the stage for all of those other states to overturn those laws. Some, if not most, will decline to overturn on equal protection grounds, but like New York, they have to eviscerate their own equal protection laws to do so.

This is interesting. The relaxed standard, which New York courts now disavow, exists primarily for the protections of commercial interests…i.e., conservatives. Now that the New York Court of Appeals has determined that what is reasonable under the rationale basis test is for the legislature to decide, absent suspect classifications or substantive rights (the pillars of the liberal interests), there is nothing stopping the flood of liberal laws that will constrain wealthy, land-owning republicans on such issues as, oh, say, eminent domain. What evil webs we weave, when first we determine to deceive.

[myron myron]

I believe this issue should be decided at the voting booth, not in the courts.

[Cambridge]

I believe this issue should be decided at the voting booth, not in the courts.

But that's not the American system. Since Marbury v. Madison, the courts have the final say on what's constitutional and what is not.

[myron myron]

I believe this issue should be decided at the voting booth, not in the courts.

But that's not the American system. Since Marbury v. Madison, the courts have the final say on what's constitutional and what is not.

So long as statutes defining marriage (passed by democratically elected legislatures) do not concern a protected class or substantial rights under the U.S. Constitution and are therefore subject to the lax "rational basis" standard of review (under which they easily pass muster) rather than "strict scrutiny," I see no meaningful Constitutional impediments thereto.

[Sharon den Adel]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

Besides that reason, I mean.

[myron myron]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

Besides that reason, I mean.

That is the legal reason.

[Cambridge]

So long as statutes defining marriage (passed by democratically elected legislatures) do not concern a protected class or substantial rights under the U.S. Constitution and are therefore subject to the lax "rational basis" standard of review (under which they easily pass muster) rather than "strict scrutiny," I see no meaningful Constitutional impediments thereto.

The “lax ‘rational basis’” standard of review, as you call it, still demands that a law have a rationale basis. It’s not always so “lax.” The Massachusetts Supreme Court said there was no rational basis for treating gays differently from straights, so there was no rational basis for outlawing gay marriages.

The only way you can say that “they easily pass muster” is to say that the same legislature that passed the law is able to say what is and what is not “rational.” That is is what the New York court did and it is a self-validating tautology; i.e., there is no independent decision-maker. The fox is in charge of the hen house. It wipes out any independent review, and therefore the “rational basis” test altogether. This is what New York has done, and consequently New York State has eviscerated its own equal protection law. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bath. Insofar as the "lax" test is usually a conservative argument, I'm going to love watching the New York courts squirm under this one.

No matter, it's academic. The most influential state court in the nation is the California Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see what it will do. I believe its decision is due in June. On the one hand, it’s a very conservative court these days. On the other hand, California is the most lenient state in the nation when it comes to accommodating gays and there will be a strong natural inclination for the California court to lean toward gay rights. Plus, given that conservatives are persona non gratis everywhere in the US today, this court might do well to hide its conservatism. We'll see.

[myron myron]

So long as statutes defining marriage (passed by democratically elected legislatures) do not concern a protected class or substantial rights under the U.S. Constitution and are therefore subject to the lax "rational basis" standard of review (under which they easily pass muster) rather than "strict scrutiny," I see no meaningful Constitutional impediments thereto.

The “lax ‘rational basis’” standard of review, as you call it, still demands that a law have a rationale basis. It’s not always so “lax.” The Massachusetts Supreme Court said there was no rational basis for treating gays differently from straights, so there was no rational basis for outlawing gay marriages.

The only way you can say that “they easily pass muster” is to say that the same legislature that passed the law is able to say what is and what is not “rational.” That is is what the New York court did and it is a self-validating tautology; i.e., there is no independent decision-maker. The fox is in charge of the hen house. It wipes out any independent review, and therefore the “rational basis” test altogether. This is what New York has done, and consequently New York State has eviscerated its own equal protection law. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bath. Insofar as the "lax" test is usually a conservative argument, I'm going to love watching the New York courts squirm under this one.

No state supreme court has adopted the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's analysis.

Even the intermediate appellate courts in liberal California have upheld the constitutionality of a democratically enacted definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under the "rational basis" standard of review, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld any law that is not facially irrational (i.e., incoherent) and has any semblance of a legislative history.

In the American system of constitutional democracy, courts are not meant to legislate.

[Cambridge]

No state supreme court has adopted the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's analysis.

Well, few important ones have had the chance.

Even the intermediate appellate courts in liberal California have upheld the constitutionality of a democratically enacted definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Well, you’re not a litigator…least of all are you a Constitutional Law litigator. We have discussed this. How many times have I had to point out to you the “politics” of the appellate courts?

Here, you have the City of San Francisco challenging the anti-gay marriage law and you have Jerry Brown as the attorney general, giving titular defense for the law. Yes, the same ultra-liberal Jerry Brown who was governor of California and Linda Rondstadt’s boyfriend.

Everyone wants the issue to be kicked up-stairs to the California Supreme Court. How else does an appellate court do that than by ruling in favor of the law? If it rules against the law, then San Francisco wins and if Jerry Brown is the defender of the law, what happens if he drops the matter? It doesn’t get to the Supreme Court, does it? So the appellate court has to uphold the law to get it to the Supreme Court.

Under the "rational basis" standard of review, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld any law that is not facially irrational (i.e., incoherent) and has any semblance of a legislative history.

These cases all deal with the State Constitutional equal protection clauses and the US Supreme Court has no business in decisions regarding State Constitutional provisions. It lacks jurisdiction and State Supreme Courts often snub the US Supreme Court on such questions. I guarantee you that the California Supreme Court looks down on the US Supreme Court these days. It's a matter of experience, and not just wisdom.

[myron myron]

The case would still have gone up to the California Supreme Court had the intermediate appellate courts invalidated the democratically enacted law because the state would have undoubtedly appealed.

Regardless whether the U.S. Supreme Court has "no business in decisions regarding State Constitutional provisions" (which is not true), state courts rely on U.S. Supreme Court cases and analytical methodology in deciding state constitutional issues.

If the "California Supreme Court looks down on the US Supreme Court these days," that means the California Supreme Court is filled with political hacks oblivious to the fact of the U.S. Supreme Court's superior authority, jurisprudence and wisdom.

[Fred75]

I believe this issue should be decided at the voting booth, not in the courts.

But that's not the American system. Since Marbury v. Madison, the courts have the final say on what's constitutional and what is not.

But is it DEMOCRATIC?
Is it law by the PEOPLE or law by the courts?

I think abortion and gay marriage should be put to a VOTE in a democratic society.
Dont you?
OR do we let others make the LAW for us?

[Cambridge]

The case would still have gone up to the California Supreme Court had the intermediate appellate courts invalidated the democratically enacted law because the state would have undoubtedly appealed.

Well, that was the risk. It’s no guarantee. You have to have a “wish” to appeal to the Supreme Court, and it’s not at all assured that Jerry “moonbeam” Brown has that wish. The question is completely controlled by the attorney general of the State of California, and that person is none other than the ultra-liberal Brown.

Regardless whether the U.S. Supreme Court has "no business in decisions regarding State Constitutional provisions" (which is not true).

You’re misleading our audience. It is true that the US Supreme Court has no business in decisions regarding purely State Constitutional provision. The only time that the US Supreme Court can get involved is if a state Supreme Court decides on a state constitutional issue, that coincidentally happens to transgress a US Constitutional question. That is not the case here, so why mention it?

state courts rely on U.S. Supreme Court cases and analytical methodology in deciding state constitutional issues.

Not if they’re trying to keep the nose of the US Supreme Court out of its business. That is why I went to discussing the California Supreme Court looking down on the US Supreme Court. If the current judges on the US Supreme Court do not measure up to the caliber of the justices on the California Supreme Court (and they do not), then they will ignore their “analytical methodology.” Does an “A” student listen to a “D” student? If one of the most powerful supreme courts in the US (that would include Massachusetts and California) wants to decide something based upon state constitutional issues, it’s going to regardless. The US Supreme Court is just left behind.

If the "California Supreme Court looks down on the US Supreme Court these days," that means the California Supreme Court is filled with political hacks oblivious to the fact of the U.S. Supreme Court's superior authority, jurisprudence and wisdom.

I've already explained this. This paragraph is merely your version of “sticks and stones.”

I think abortion and gay marriage should be put to a VOTE in a democratic society.
Dont you?

Well, hairy-back, keep in mind that Adolph Hitler was the product of a popular vote. The problem with letting the people have unbridled reign over certain questions is they often make very bad decisions. Read Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in American (particularly his chapter on the tyranny of the majority).

[Sharon den Adel]

As to why gay marriage should not be legal? That is, and arguement that would stand up in court of law.

In 49 of the 50 American states, there is indeed a legal reason that "would stand up in court of law," to wit: the legal definition of "marriage" expressly provides that it is between a man and a woman.

Besides that reason, I mean.

That is the legal reason.

Laws can change, though. I want a reason beside that one. I am aware that gay marriage is illegal, but is there any other legal reason, besides that one?