Sterling Olander 1st place in the law category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Betsy

Logical Fallacies Used By Courts to Justify Same-Sex Marriage Validate a Slippery Slope

Abstract:

Scholars have dismissed the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage of three or more, saying it is merely the logical fallacy of the “slippery slope.”  They have also offered various arguments against polygamy to show that same-sex marriage is not a slippery slope.  However, none of the arguments against polygamy are very compelling, especially after Lawrence v. Texas, and the polyamory movement renders most of them moot.  Further, state courts that have established same-sex marriage rights have refuted arguments that the central purpose of marriage is related to procreation and child-rearing, as proponents of traditional marriage have argued.  In doing so, these courts have committed logical fallacies that not only justify same-sex marriage, but that also justify marriage of three or more.  Thus, the marriage-of-three argument is a non-fallacious slippery slope because it predicts a likely outcome of an initial action.

Introduction

Most legally-cognizable arguments defending traditional marriage suggest a link between marriage and both procreation and childrearing.  According to the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8,  “[t]he central purpose of marriage… had always been to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.”[1] Advocates of same-sex marriage often deny this alleged central purpose of marriage and point to other benefits and purposes of marriage to justify their argument that the law may not exclude two men or two women from marrying.  (more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Allison Belnap 2nd place in the law Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Betsy

Same-Sex Marriage is not Miscegenation: Why Loving does not Figure in the Marriage Debate

I. Introduction

Loving v. Virginia[1] was a landmark decision in American family law.  In it, the U.S. Supreme Court struck anti-miscegenation statutes adopted by Virginia as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and simultaneously invalidated all such statutes then in force in at least fourteen states across the country.[2] Within four years of the decision, a homosexual couple from Minnesota cited Loving in support of their assertion that Minnesota’s refusal to allow the couple to marry similarly violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of “a substantial federal question,”[4] thereby rejecting petitioners’ argument that the preservation of marriage as a legal relationship between one woman and one man is analogous to the invidious racial discrimination demonstrated in the Virginian statutes at issue in Loving.

Still, almost forty years later, proponents of same-sex marriage continue to assert that the Loving precedent applies equally to both situations.[5] This attempt to analogize the fight to legalize same-sex marriage to the judicial precedent invalidating prohibitions against interracial marriage addressed in Loving fails on multiple fronts; this Note will examine three points in detail.  (more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Patricia Dyck Honorable Mention in the Undergraduate Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Betsy

Stable Families and Same-Sex Unions

The question of same-sex marriage has triggered a passionate and polarized debate. Extremists from the conservative side have cried terms such as ‘disgusting’ and ‘perverted.’ Parallels have even been drawn arguing that legitimizing same-sex marriage would quickly lead to marriage with animals. Such exaggerated claims are ridiculous and excessive. Unfortunately, these extremes are often associated with any who oppose same-sex marriage and are labeled as ‘intolerant,’ or ‘bigots,’ when in reality, opposition to same-sex marriage has legitimate concerns. A poignant point strewn across the signs of protestors must be considered in such a debate: “This has EVERYTHING to do with me, and NOTHING to do with you.” But is this true? At first glance this makes perfect sense, but if we take a deeper look, it does indeed have everything to do with us, our children, and our society. Families in the marriage unit are fundamental to society and same-sex marriage will inherently dilute the institution of marriage and the family.

Society views marriage as an important institution as it leads to families. “The institution of marriage is found in some form in all human societies because it is an effective way to ensure societal continuity through reproduction and socialization, as well as societal extension through the kinds of alliances that are produced when families are joined.” (Farrell, Pg 95) John Culhane explains that it is clear that our society values marriage because we encourage people to marry and then make it fairly difficult to get divorced. (Wells, ???) Though it is true not all marriages lead to families, it is largely accepted that this institution leads to the family and this serves as a model to society that marriage is not just an institution for two people. (more…)

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Vanessa Nielsen Honorable Mention in the Undergraduate Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Betsy

Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage: The Key to Equal Rights for Women

Oscar Wilde once said, “Marriage is the one subject on which all women agree and all men disagree.”[1] It would appear that Wilde’s assertion is a dated one, for these days there is a large population of men who are very anxious to be married—to each other. There are also many women who reject the concept of gender roles entirely, and who strongly disagree with marriage. Wilde’s statement, though trivially given, seems to be a strong indicator of how times have changed, as homosexual marriage and other household arrangements besides that of heterosexual marriage are promoted in every sphere from religion to politics. However, it is my belief that if equal rights for women are ever to be achieved, men and women both must be overwhelmingly in agreement about the importance of marriage. Unfortunately, the promotion of heterosexual marriage has not seemed to form a part of the feminist movement or the fight for equal gender rights; in fact, some argue that the feminist movement has led society away from marriage by opening the door for homosexual marriage advocates. Yet the only way to achieve truly equal rights for women is through monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and for this reason it is the arrangement the state must privilege above all other household arrangements.

Male Domination and the Female Fight for Rights

Any discussion of gender rights necessitates an understanding of how things began. For this we must look to human history, which gives us many examples of violence in the human race, especially male violence inflicted upon females. One need look no further than human biology to understand the prevalence of male-on-female violence: physiologically, males have an undeniable advantage over females when it comes to upper body strength.[2] This physical advantage is augmented by the fact that the responsibility of reproduction renders females weaker; firstly, the male desire for sexual intercourse with the female may lead to rape, injury or even death. Secondly, the periods of pregnancy and childbirth lead to greater vulnerability and weakness in the female. Due to the historical physical domination of males over females, physical coercion of females ensured the dominance of male force over female will. This in turn led to a social order in which men were the superior beings, while women became inferior. (more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Julie Slater Law Honorable Mention

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

Upholding the Ideal Family for Children: A Mother and a Father

Homosexual marriage has emerged as one of the most controversial public policy issues of the day. Understanding the issues surrounding homosexual adoption would help policymakers more wisely resolve the question of homosexual marriage because the government’s primary interest in promoting marriage as an institution resides in its capability to produce and raise children.  As scholar Richard Wilkins argues, “The very concept of marriage is indissolubly linked to the societal imperatives of procreation and child rearing. As the Supreme Court has recognized, procreation involves the ’very existence and survival of mankind.’ Laws protecting and preferring heterosexual marriage are a principled and necessary means of furthering this most imperative of all governmental objectives” (1992).  As some contest that homosexual marriage could produce the benefit of raising children through adoption, homosexual adoption is a crucial question in the debate over same-sex marriage. If homosexuals were given a right to marry, it would logically follow that they should be able to legally adopt children, as raising children is one of the primary functions of marriage.

The issue of homosexual adoption can be analyzed through a variety of frameworks that are commonly used to analyze public policies, including utilitarian calculations, rights, equality, societal norms and values, and pragmatism.  These frameworks raise a significant number of issues such as, how homosexual parenting compares to heterosexual parenting, whether homosexuals have a right to raise children and how this compares to the right of children to have a mother and father, and whether homosexuality is behavioral rather than an innate and immutable trait. Overall, these frameworks indicate that governments should promote placing children in traditional families at all costs, as research overwhelmingly shows that the traditional family provides the best environment and opportunities for children to achieve optimal development.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »