Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban by Geezer

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
A little ray of sanity in a troubled world. Thank you for the news, Geezer.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

This topic goes in the psychic thread. I could have predicted this one too.

Those New Englanders like the alternative...lumberjocks, liberals, commies, artists, intellectuals, and baby killers. All living down the street from Ted Kennedy while the Boston poor make the poor of Cleveland or the late New Orleans look downright affluent.

I'll take Ohio and my mid-western red-state values.

For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:27 PM

LOFWYRR

Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. Gay marriage (which, I suppose, would have to be church related), civil unions (which is the legal part of "marriage" for anyone) liscensed cohabitation, whatever. As long as a segment of the population is kept from signing a legal contract with (I believe) state government, they are a persecuted minority.
It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lofwyrr:
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. Gay marriage (which, I suppose, would have to be church related), civil unions (which is the legal part of "marriage" for anyone) liscensed cohabitation, whatever. As long as a segment of the population is kept from signing a legal contract with (I believe) state government, they are a persecuted minority.
It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.

Unlike drivers licenses, marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.

I have no issue with reserving the sanctity of marriage to a man and woman upholding the established definition.

Civil Unions are another matter. As an attorney I am a firm believer in the right to contract. Two persons, perhaps more and regardless of sexual orientation (could be siblings, cousins, life long friends, etc), joining their legal interests in a mutually beneficial arrangment is good for everyone.

Also, for the record Drivers Licenses are not a right. They are a privilage heavily regulated by the State and often denied to many persons including homosexuals, women, latinos, immigrants, white males, and anyone else who fails to meet requirements that apply to everyone. Things like age, knowledge, and residency.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.

Why so?

Slavery was the "law of the land" for centuries. Denying women the right to vote or own property was established law also. Maybe it's time to make another change.

Civil Unions don't provide the same legal protections and rights as marriage, at least on the state level. The Defense of Marriage act pretty much keeps same-sex couples from obtaining any of the Federal rights that a conventional Male-female marriage would provide anyway (not that I agree with that either).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:46 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'll tell you what I think.

Governments shouldn't endorse any kind of marraige, nor reject them either.

Marraige should be either a religious choice, for those that feel that way, or a legal contract between partners, such as in a business.

There should be no tax break for marraige, and no government involvement in the concept whatsoever.

Child support, I say keep, because children will always need to be supported.

But marraige? Discard it as an institution of the state. It belongs entirely to the people.

If people feel religious, and they want to marry, they should be allowed to do so under the precepts of their religion, and whatever it means to them, it means to them.

If people feel the need to arrange a financial contract or services contract with each other, they should be allowed to do so. If people want to jointly own property, then they should go ahead.

Why the devil do we need governments getting involved in people's choice to marry or not?

I just don't get it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Now if only other states would wise up and let folks be with who they want.

I’m happy to see that the anti-democratic legislation imposed on Massachusetts has been somewhat validated by an elected legislative body. I would be happier to see a popular referendum, but at least Massachusetts is moving in a more democratic direction with regards to marriage law concerning homosexuals. However, I'm not a resident of Massachusetts so what I think they should or shouldn't do is fairly meaningless.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:13 PM

CALLMEATH

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

For the record. Gay marriage wrong, Civil Unions ok.

I don't normally post in the Real World threads, but I had to speak up here.

Marriage is NOT solely a Christian institution. Marriage has been an idea in nearly every culture for as far back as recorded history, and probably further. I'm a Christian myself, but I don't try to force my beliefs on others, and I certainly don't try to enforce laws that only apply to those of my religion.

Gays are already sinners, right? What does it matter if they get married? How on Earth can you justify that? Why don't we just start punishing people for having "Other gods before Him"? Ridiculous!

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.

I do not see how you could possibly be a success as an attorney with such terrible argumentative skills. The reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because of tradition? Yeah, because we should always dictate the actions of today by the actions of yesterday.

Alright, ladies, you heard Hero. I guess you have to get back in the kitchen and start pumping out babies. Oh, also, African-Americans? Uh, yeah, you guys get back in the fields. You're slaves again. Picking cotton is a tradition, after all.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:56 PM

G1223

Well while I have personel reservations about gay marraige and of courts making laws up out of whole cloth I do support the choice of a state legislature to make up laws or refuse to make them.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lofwyrr:
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. ......... It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.

Unlike drivers licenses, marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.

I have no issue with reserving the sanctity of marriage to a man and woman upholding the established definition.

Civil Unions are another matter. As an attorney I am a firm believer in the right to contract. Two persons, perhaps more and regardless of sexual orientation (could be siblings, cousins, life long friends, etc), joining their legal interests in a mutually beneficial arrangment is good for everyone.

Also, for the record Drivers Licenses are not a right. They are a privilage heavily regulated by the State and often denied to many persons including homosexuals, women, latinos, immigrants, white males, and anyone else who fails to meet requirements that apply to everyone. Things like age, knowledge, and residency.

H

Hero, you are correct in rejecting the analogy between driver's licenses and the right to marry - tain't the same thing. A correct and exact analogy would be: "to deny the right to marry whoever they choose to gays is the same thing as denying the right to vote to women, blacks, or the American children of Chinese immigrants". All of which have happened in the past, but most decent folk now recognize that they were gross injustices. Note that gays have a perfect right to marry regardless of current anti-gay laws, just not the person of their choosing.

Second, the "established definition" to which you refer is of extremely recent vintage, and reveals a good bit of cultural myopia as well as a limited historical perspective. The first law in the US as to "who can marry" came in 1862, and prohibited polygamy - but only in US Territories, not the States. It was aimed specifically at a then-despised minority, the early Mormons. If you lived in a State, there was no federal law against having more than one wife. The current "1 man, 1 woman" legalistic emphasis is a product of the last decade, not surprisingly concurrent with increasing assertion from gays that, being human beings and citizens of this country, that they ought to have the same full rights of other human beings and fellow citizens of this country.

But the cultural myopia issue is not trivial either; more than 2/3 of known human cultures allow polygyny (one man, several wives). A very few allow polyandry (one wife, usually with a couple of brothers). The rest are monogamous. So if you want to talk about "The Institution of Marriage" among humans - and much of the debate is framed in exactly those words - and you want to invoke historical precedent, then we have to go with polygamy as the norm. Please note that in Judaism, the historical root religion for Christianity (ever notice how much bigger the Old Testament is compared to the New?), polygamy is perfectly acceptable.

Across human societies, The Institution of Marriage is still mostly, and has historically been about property rights and social status and relationships between families, not the individuals who are getting married. This business of having individuals choose their own life partner is of very recent origin, and pretty much strictly western to this day. The interests of those getting married, haven't historically even been relevant to the discussion - they could learn to like it (and each other), or lump it. Didn't much matter to their families.

I can't think of any logical, dispassionately rational reason that gays shouldn't have every right possessed by straight folk, including marriage. To argue otherwise carries the direct implication that they are either not truly human beings, or not full citizens. I'd like to think that Americans have more common decency than that.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:28 AM

There is a common trend today to seek to equate the homosexual relations often conducted and even celebrated between men in the ancient Greco-roman world with marriage. And this is an utter travesty of history. The Greco-roman culture was a phallic worshiping society. As such the celebration of homosexual activity in this context was not a celebration of homosexuals but an example of dominion: one man dominating over another, generally a slave or a child. Consensual sexual relationship between men was almost always regarded as very amoral, particularly after childhood. Although there is some, less then conclusive, evidence of same-sex marriage in the classical and medieval Europe, it is very difficult to argue that it was accepted at all, if even true.

I’m not so sure that it is very astute to argue that it didn’t matter to their families. I think you would be hardpressed to find many families, historically, that would have sanctioned a marriage, relatively speaking, between their son and another man. Traditionally, marriage has throughout human history and across almost all cultures been defined as being between a man and a woman. The numbers involved, particularly on the female side, have varied, but rarely has the sexes been the same. Whether or not this is an argument against gay marriage today is matter of opinion, but certainly we shouldn’t seek to rewrite history to suit current political trends.

While the polygamy argument does have some historical bases, gay marriage probably does not.

And while I, personally, am in favor of allowing gay marriage, I do not think it is a civil rights issue either.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:39 AM

Thank you for some very cogent words.

For every civil purpose, all "marriages" are just "civil unions." Trying to morph them into something else belongs in the realms of religion and thus has no place in governance (and the laws associated therewith). I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:40 AM

KNIBBLET

Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:40 AM

KNIBBLET

Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.

I do not see how you could possibly be a success as an attorney with such terrible argumentative skills.

I get this alot. Nobody else can explain it either. You'll have to ask the Judges (local and appellate) and Juries who keep siding with me. I've not lost a case since last January. I love Juries. I do this 'aw shucks' and call them 'folk' and they eat it up.

Quote:

The reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because of tradition? Yeah, because we should always dictate the actions of today by the actions of yesterday.

Alright, ladies, you heard Hero. I guess you have to get back in the kitchen and start pumping out babies. Oh, also, African-Americans? Uh, yeah, you guys get back in the fields. You're slaves again. Picking cotton is a tradition, after all.

Picking cotton is a tradition. But slavery is a discredited institution that is not consistant with American values. I leave the kitchen to whoever makes the best pancakes.

I remind you that the great fear of the early and mid-1800's was that some fool New England legislature would find a way to impose their moral judgement about slavery on the rest of the country. War resulted creating a unique settlement of a complex legal issue.

If we are to be dictated by moral judgements, I offer you a trade. Gay marriage for a ban on abortion and a creation theory to be named later.

Banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Thus it is not contrary to the Constitution or American values. Any person, regardless of race, creed, color, religon, or sexual orientation can get married. Marriage is a legal and social joining between a man and woman. What the gay marriage people want is to change what marriage is.

Our legal system is derived from the British one that existed in 1776, after which we split allowing our system of law and common law to evolve on its own, yet we retain certain principals that can be traced back hundreds of years. Contract, what is it, how does it work? A Presidential pardon, we know the word in our Constitution, but what is it, how does it work? What does it mean to 'keep and bear arms'? What do the words 'search and seizure' mean? All of these legal ideas are initially derived from the common law that existed at the time.

So lets look at marriage. Currently, except at Ted Kennedy's house, its between a man and a woman and requires a license, two consenting adults one male and one female both of sufficient age not married to anyone else and not related to a certain degree, solemnization (some kind of vows in a formal setting such as before a Judge or a minister), and consumation. Some jurisdictions require additional things like a blood test for example.

Changing these requirements requires legislation and courts have no place in imposing their own standards in lieu of the reasoned and considered judgement of the duly elected representitives.

The problem arises when one state makes a rule change inconistant with those of other states. The 'full faith and credit' clause requires all the states to respect each others laws, so a Nevada marriage license, for example, must be respected by the state of Ohio. We now have inconistant rules. Ohio must respect Nevada's definition of marriage and Nevada must respect Ohio's.

Now enter the courts. Their role is to resolve the conflict between competing state laws. They rely on precedent, existing Federal Law, the Constitution, and Common Law understanding of the issue. Three of those support the contention that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Constitution is silent on the matter. In order for the Constitution to trump we must find a fundamental right in question.

Some suggest its a privacy issue, the govt has no business injecting itself into a person's private affairs. This cannot be true because we know an adult should not marry a child, so clearly the govt has some role. Also marriage has always been regulated by the govt for reasons of taxation, health, welfare, inheritance, safety, and morals. Thus while there is a privacy concern, it is one a person gives up to some extent by seeking legal recognition of the relationship.

A better argument is the discrimination issue. Two men (A and B) cannot marry each other, while a man (C) and a woman (lets call her Amber) can. Thus it aint fair, it aint right, and it aint constitutional says they. Rights, however, are individual to a person. Take the four persons above and leaving aside ancillary issues like age and relation. Amber is free to marry whomever she wishes as is A, B, and C, all with the same restrictions. Thus their rights are equal and none of them are being denied. The problem lies in their choice of partner not their exercise of the right, thus discrimination is simply not an issue.

Lets look at it another way. Black man wants to buy your house. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because he is black? Yes. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because it is not for sale (ie not available)? No.

I'm not saying the discrimination argument can't be made. It has been made, successfully, with mixed race couples, a case in Virginia from the '60s springs to mind. However, while the same arguments apply, race is given a much higher level of scrutiny by the courts then sexual orientation. Thus they have been able to meet the standard, while the gay marriage folks have not.

At this point, the argument is no longer about the merits, its about whether sexual orientation deserves the same level of scrutiny as race when examining constitutional issues. Homosexuals would be hard pressed to equate their circumstances, while historically difficult to be sure, with those faced by racial minorities or women. Their argument in this area would and has failed and with it all of their constitutional arguments. Their only recourse then becomes continuing their legistlative efforts to change existing laws at the Federal level, thus giving the Supreme Court a reason to find for them, or trumping everyone by amending the Constitution itself, as was done to expand sufferage and free the slaves.

Civil Union is the elegant solution. It gives the same legal rights as marriage. It is a new entity at law so it carries none of the baggage marriage does in terms of precedent and such. And it can be applied to all sorts of relationships beyond the sexual realm. My favorite example are elederly cousins living together, sharing expenses and such being able to legally combine their resources and to pass them one to the other should one die.

So gay marriage, no, civil unions yes. Slaves in field, no. Women in kitchens...hmmm...I'll have to think about that one.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:06 AM

"... (F)ull of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The hidden agenda in this issue, as always, is the underlying belief by some that homosexual relationships are inherently bad, and any concessions made by society that might benefit such relationships are to be resisted. If Joe wants to marry Fred, and is not permitted to do so by law, then Joe IS NOT free to marry whomever he wishes, within the constraints of age and consent (which are legitimate restrictions for demonstrable civil benefit). Admit the whole basis for controversy is the distate some feel over homsexuality, and stop the disengenuous bullshit. This IS an issue of bigotry, nothing else.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
"... (F)ull of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The hidden agenda in this issue, as always, is the underlying belief by some that homosexual relationships are inherently bad, and any concessions made by society that might benefit such relationships are to be resisted. If Joe wants to marry Fred, and is not permitted to do so by law, then Joe IS NOT free to marry whomever he wishes, within the constraints of age and consent (which are legitimate restrictions for demonstrable civil benefit). Admit the whole basis for controversy is the distate some feel over homsexuality, and stop the disengenuous bullshit. This IS an issue of bigotry, nothing else.

As I said any man is free to marry any woman who will have him and any woman is free to marry any man she can con out of a ring. No discrimination. I am not free to marry a certain hot celebrity because she wont have me (probably, I haven't asked...yet). Thats not fair, but its not discrimination. My choice is invalid under the law.

I do admit the issue is largely driven by conflicting moral judgements. But legally the issue is limited to the definition of marriage and whether homosexuals deserve the same level of constitutional scrutiny as racial minorities.

Thats like slavery. The issue was driven by conflicting moral judgements (and economics) but legally the Civil War was about State's Rights as related to succession.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:27 AM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

Well it is those fears that drove our ancestor's to make the first laws. They had some religous laws within them. But Murder Theft and Purjury all crimes that a society were not accept happening within it.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:30 AM

And marriage under those conditions has no place in law; it's a moral/religious concept and not a civil one. Remove all mention of marriage from laws, so all are entitled to civil unions, and leave the addition of "marriage" to the concept as the perogative of churches where it belongs.

The whole concept of solemnifying a relationship between two people is based on their desire for that relationship. If two consenting adults desire that and are denied it for reasons that have no civil purpose whatsoever, that is a problem and bears correcting. Trying to tie it to racial bias is a strawman.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:23 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I do this 'aw shucks' and call them 'folk' and they eat it up.

"Since few men are wise, rule by the majority is the rule of fools..." Guess it works for juries to

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Civil Union is the elegant solution. It gives the same legal rights as marriage. It is a new entity at law so it carries none of the baggage marriage does in terms of precedent and such. And it can be applied to all sorts of relationships beyond the sexual realm. My favorite example are elederly cousins living together, sharing expenses and such being able to legally combine their resources and to pass them one to the other should one die.

So you want to ripout the legallity of marriage and call it Civil Union...
Hmm... so your reasoning seems to be:
cause homosexuals aren't good enough for 'proper' marriage, give 'em something that sounds similar, and hope they don't notice...
I, at least, can see why your probably a very good laywer...

I have a proposal, how about we get rid of this stupid love thing, yeah, gets in the way of religous fundamentallists and they're appologists, and since they run America, that can only be a good thing, can't it?

Or even better, lets stop everyone from getting married! Thats so much better! Then we're oppressing everyone equally! That'll be okay, won't it Hero?

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Picking cotton is a tradition. But slavery is a discredited institution that is not consistant with American values.

Your argument is that slavery is not consistent with American values? Well, many (including myself) would argue that discrimination based on sexual preference is not consistent with our values, either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If we are to be dictated by moral judgements, I offer you a trade. Gay marriage for a ban on abortion and a creation theory to be named later.

I would think that allowing gays to marry is more akin to witholding moral judgement, rather than imposing it upon others. And I am all for teaching Creationism. . .as long as its not in a science class. Leave it for a theology or mythology class.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Lets look at it another way. Black man wants to buy your house. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because he is black? Yes. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because it is not for sale (ie not available)? No.

This analogy sounds nice, but it doesn't actually apply to a little thing I like to call "reality." We are talking about two willing individuals who want to enter into a union, so it is not a case of one partner not "being for sale," as it were.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I look at it another way. In the not too far past, people hated gays because they were promiscuous and engaged in orgiastic, indicriminate bath house sex. Now people hate gays because they want to get married and be faithful to each other and take care of each other.

It seems to me that we should be trying to figure out what values we want to promote, and I'm all for equality between partners, committment and responsibility. I would only be concerned if one person appears to be at a significant legal or practical disadvantge compared to the other and there appeared to be significant possibility of coercion or abuse.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:15 PM

CITIZEN

Maybe its just that people (those opposed to gay marriage) hate homosexuals...
One wonders why that is...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:19 PM

It would have something to do with the superstitious worship of a certain supernatural book, I believe. It seems often to be the culprit when related issues of hatred/bigotry come up.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:03 PM

CITIZEN

Hmmm, maybe, I was thinking something more individual tho...

You see once apone a time there was this research done, involving Homophobic people...

Scientist asked a bunch of people their opinions on homosexuality.
Then they showed them gay porn.
Then they asked them if what they had seen turned them on.
Both those that had and had not expressed Homophobic attitudes answered the same way, no.
But there was, erm, how should I say, certain signs, that, that was not the case for the Homophobic men...

However, I think religion is also a major factor...

All in all, theres alot of reason, few have anything to do with homosexuallity itself:

Quote:
Alternatively, homophobia may be a projection of individuals' insecurities about their gender identity, says Patrick Suraci, a Manhattan clinical psychologist and author of Male Sexual Armor: Erotic Fantasies and Sexual Realities of the Cop on the Beat and the Man in the Street. Gender identity denotes not biological sex, but male or female physical and psychological characteristics--in other words, how masculine or feminine a person appears. Asked to define "masculinity," the 134 New York policemen and 1,392 civilians interviewed for Male Sexual Armor "commonly responded, not being homosexual," says Suraci. The tendency of men to define gender in terms of sexual orientation may explain why more men than women are homophobic. That men tend to be more phobic about gay men than gay women could be explained by the cultural taboo against anal sex.

Finally, some psychologists speculate that the disgust some men feel toward male homosexuals is rooted in fear and hatred of women. "Gay men are often perceived as feminine [by heterosexual men]," says Richard Isay, clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College in New York, and author of Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/articles/nowack.html

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:14 PM

"I can't think of any logical, dispassionately rational reason that gays shouldn't have every right possessed by straight folk, including marriage. To argue otherwise carries the direct implication that they are either not truly human beings, or not full citizens. I'd like to think that Americans have more common decency than that."

Sorry to quote myself from above, but I'm still waiting for a response to this from the opponents of gay marriage. Let me rephrase it as a question:

For those of you who oppose the rights of gays to marry, what is your honest reason for denying gays the same rights that you claim for yourselves?

Those of us who believe that any acknowledged set of human rights ought to pertain to all adult, mentally competent human beings would really like to know.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
For those of you who oppose the rights of gays to marry, what is your honest reason for denying gays the same rights that you claim for yourselves?

I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.

I've gone into great detail on the legal issue. You don't agree. We can probably leave it at that.

Quote:

Those of us who believe that any acknowledged set of human rights ought to pertain to all adult, mentally competent human beings would really like to know.

I agree that any ackowledged set of human rights ought to extend to all persons.

The problem is that gay marriage is not an ackowledged human right. It could be, it may become, but it presently is not.

Freedom to marry is granted to all competant adults, a homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will have him, as is any other man, there's simply no discrimination to complain about. Discrimination only arises when people are treated differently. If a heterosexual man could marry another heterosexual man but homosexuals were denied that right, then you'd have a case, hell I'd represent you (that way you'd win).

The argument here is not about the right to marry, its the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been. I explained above about the conflict between State laws leading to the Supreme court consulting precedent, Federal Law, and the constitution. None of those things supports your conclusion, unless the court ascribes special scrutiny to homosexual issues as they do to minority issues. They presently don't do that, so unless you change the Federal Law or the Constitution (or build a time machine and go back and redefine marriage through the ages) you have little or no chance or winning (unless the court decides to just make it up on its own like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Mayor of San Fransisco).

Now Civil Unions are something I can agree with. I do not condone anything that promotes gay relationships. I support Civil Unions because I believe in the right to contract. I think it could be useful for partnerships (same sex and otherwise) of many types, not just sexual.

Should an otherwise competent man be allowed to marry more then one woman? A child? An animal? A corporation? Land?

I admit to having great affection for a plate of buffalo wings during last Sunday's Browns game, but marriage was out of the question (the relationship, while fulfilling, just didn't last).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.

In the 21st century, most forward-thinking Christians acknowledge the Bible for what it is: a series of stories, inspired by faith and written by men, which provide a pretty good moral compass to live your life by. It was also a product of its time(s), with hits like “Honky-Tonk Menstruating Women (Are Unclean And Impure)” and “Whores Should Be Burned To Death.” If the Bible can be so wrong about something as commonplace as menstruation, couldn’t it also be wrong in its views towards homosexuality? Shouldn’t its wisdom be tempered with a little bit of common sense on the part of the reader? Only the most stubborn will claim the Good Book as the unerring and immutable Word of God, refusing to combine its ethical precepts with critical thinking and rational thought; incidentally, these are the same people who hide behind the Bible to defend their bigotry.

And can we please stop with this "traditional understanding of the nature of marriage" crap? There is no "traditional understanding of marriage," unless you mean to suggest that women are property and they are at the whims of their husband. How many times do I have to say, traditions aren't always good. Female genital mutilation is a tradition in many parts of the world; that doesn't mean that it's right.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Should an otherwise competent man be allowed to marry more then one woman? A child? An animal? A corporation? Land?

This is an example often brought up by opponents to letting homosexuals marry, mainly because they think it sounds good, without realizing it's complete bullshit. Not only does it demean homosexuals by comparing their loving, committed couple to the acts of beastiality and pedophilia, it makes no sense. We are talking about two fully grown adults wishing to join themselves in marriage, fully cognizant of the choices they are making. That is in no way the same as someone proposing that they marry a minor or a household pet, because common sense dictates that children are not able to enter into a legal contract by themselves, and animals don't talk.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The problem is that gay marriage is not an ackowledged human right. It could be, it may become, but it presently is not.

Why don't we stop calling it "gay marriage"? I often use the term myself, because we are innundated with it, but let's face it: homosexuals are not asking for a special kind of marriage just for them. They merely want the same kind of rights afforded to heterosexual couples. So, if anything, we're talking about marriage equality.

Besides which, whether marriage is specifically acknowledged as a right or not is irrelevant. Gays are people, too. They should have the right, same as anyone, to happiness. If that means marriage, who the fuck are you to stand in the way of that?

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
And can we please stop with this "traditional understanding of the nature of marriage" crap? There is no "traditional understanding of marriage," unless you mean to suggest that women are property and they are at the whims of their husband. How many times do I have to say, traditions aren't always good.

I found this at a legal website. Its a short overview of the legal understanding and history of marriage.

Quote:

marriage: an overview
In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marraige as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. § 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. § 1738C). (See Law about... Conflicts of laws, Constitutional law)

That gives as good a brief overview as any. Back to you:

Quote:

So, if anything, we're talking about marriage equality.

We already have that. Any heterosexual man is free to marry any woman who will. Homosexual men have the EXACT same right, to marry any woman. Thus there is no discrimination.

Quote:

Besides which, whether marriage is specifically acknowledged as a right or not is irrelevant. Gays are people, too. They should have the right, same as anyone, to happiness. If that means marriage, who the fuck are you to stand in the way of that?

They can have all the happiness they want. Heck they have a whole happy day devoted exclusively to them at Disney world. Not to mention a couple cable networks. But they want special dispensation to go the wrong way down a one way street (Marriage Street). They argue that because everyone else is traveling the correct way down the street, they should be allowed to travel the street in any direction they want. I'm not standing in their way, I'm just saying they take another street (like Civil Union Boulevard) to get to the same place. Or they can travel on Marriage Street if they so choose, so long as they obey the traffic signals and travel the same direction as everyone else.

Good traffic laws are good for the whole community.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.

I feel that you're using legal arguments to buttress your basic religious beliefs about, or personal reactions to homosexuals. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
.. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Please don't think they give a shit.

The Defense of Marriage act, passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton back in 1996, defines marriage and spouse thus:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Not one of our legislature's finer moments, IMHO.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree. (Along with "don't ask, don't tell") But this does not impose a Federal definition of marriage on the individual states. What it does is release states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in OTHER states.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.
I feel that you're using legal arguments to buttress your basic religious beliefs about, or personal reactions to homosexuals. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Most do. But not all. HI and MA are the most liberal on the issue. Some more have diverging court cases rather then legislation on the subject.

This, as I said before, creates the conflict between state laws that the Defense of Marriage Act was meant to address. That act was designed to insulate the straight states from giving 'full faith and credit' to the gay states. As such I believe the Act may eventually fail Constitutional muster.

Does this mean gay marriage is legal? Not necessarily.

This is a dispute between conflicting state laws under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution. That means that this conflict is squarely the responsibility of the Supreme Court to resolve.

The Constitution is silent on the issue. That leaves Precedent and Federal Law, neither of which favor the gay interpretation. So legally the issue will fail.

Now the gays could try to backdoor the whole thing by claiming discrimination. Many liberal judges have proven open to such unexpected legal thrusts often coming to conclusions that favor gay marriage. Lets face it, liberal judges moan like cheap whores when examining the gay briefs often swallowing them whole before spurting their own legal opinions all over the bench.

However, this would mean equating homosexuals with other oppressed minorities to trigger the strict scutiny of the state laws that the Supreme Court has, in the past, used to overturn bans on interacial marriages.

I loved Constitutional Law class.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 10:13 AM

I'm still looking for some logic and reasoning, rather than just some folk trying to force their personal values onto other human beings. Hero,I'd also like to hear your rationalization (actually, I'd prefer some logic) for why gays shouldn't be treated like any other minority. Minority status doesn't depend on skin color or whether someones status is easy to spot from a distance. Not even necessarily on how they are treated by the majority (though if they are being treated decently and fairly there isn't much to debate - that's the whole point). It's a simple numerical argument: if there are more people "not-similar-to-you" than "similar-to-you" you are in a minority. You are arguing that some minorities deserve better treatment than others. Where I come from we call that "unfair", "biased" and many other much less pleasant terms.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
I'm still looking for some logic and reasoning, rather than just some folk trying to force their personal values onto other human beings.

Word.

I would like to continue this debate, but since Hero's modus operandi seems to consist of either ignoring the majority of people's points, or creating moronic analogies that do nothing but distract from the issue, I fear that it may by for naught.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:09 PM

OURMRREYNOLDS

Oh my goddess, this isn't even really an argument is it? Just call 'em ALL "Civil Unions" because either A.) its just a semantic point, with no relevance to what people actually DO or B.) marriage is a religious institution and should not have any bearing legally anyway. For the record, I deny the state the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with a consenting adult, or in the privacy of my home. The state don't like that?

'em, and their little dog too. I never planned on asking the govt if it was alright with them anyway. And you know what? You don't have to ask me if its alright either. I officially give you all my permission to do your thing. Non serviam.

Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.
"I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
, or creating moronic analogies that do nothing but distract from the issue, I fear that it may by for naught.

Had to use "moronic analogies" because some of you seemed unable to understand the legal issues.

I apologize if I was wrong to do that.

I was basically trying to draw you a map hopeing to guide you from Fantasyland, were you are, to a place called Reality, were most Americans wind up eventually.

Never mind. I'll condense the whole legal, moral, and social argument down for you:

Gay marriage, no. Civil unions, ok.

That should keep you busy for a while.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 8:00 PM

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that not being a bigot was living in "Fantasyland."

I just don't see how denying gays the right to marry is any different from some Jim Crow law denying an interracial couple the right to marry. African-Americans were long viewed as something less than people in this country, which is exactly how you're characterizing homosexuals with your childish "what's to stop a man from marrying an animal?" rhetoric.

(As far as the "legal issues" go, any legal system that discriminates against a group of people based on who they love isn't worth a damn thing.)

Your analogies have no real bearing on the facts, and only serve to distract from the reality of the situation, which is that we are talking about human lives. You may think you talk purdy and have a firm grasp of the law and legal precedent, but there's one question you don't seem to have an answer to, as evidenced by your continuously avoiding it: what does it matter to you who marries who, or who sleeps with who? Does it effect you in any meaningful way? I highly fuckin' doubt it.

So long as their choices are not harming you or anyone else, what difference does it make whether they get married or not?

PS: You're probably right about civil unions. History has clearly shown that "seperate but equal" always works out well for minorities.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
.
Had to use "moronic analogies" because some of you seemed unable to understand the legal issues.

I apologize if I was wrong to do that.

I was basically trying to draw you a map hopeing to guide you from Fantasyland, were you are, to a place called Reality, were most Americans wind up eventually.

Never mind. I'll condense the whole legal, moral, and social argument down for you:

Gay marriage, no. Civil unions, ok.

That should keep you busy for a while.

H

Well, actually not - it won't take any time at all for us thinking people to recognize that you are trying to completely evade the argument. We're asking for something like a rational argument that might begin to justify your assertion that some human beings deserve better treatment than other human beings. Please stop avoiding the issue and tell us why you think some people deserve more and better rights than some other people.

One might wonder if you have ever heard of something called "The Golden Rule" - yeah, that little dictum that suggests you might want to treat people the same way you'd like them to treat you.

And while we're at it, we'd like you to explain the meaning of the adjective "hypocrite", which would be generally used to describe people who would claim privileges for themselves that they deny to others.....

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 17, 2005 5:55 AM

Sad, that my first post is on this issue and not about Firefly, but this is an issue that gets me riled. Especially, when someone is confused about the law… Perhaps Hero is unaware that he is not the only one with a legal education who frequents these boards.

For Hero’s benefit, I would ask him to look at Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. This continuum of cases clearly establishes that same-sex relationships are protected under the penumbra of the right to privacy and also foreshadow same-sex marriage. This is the law of the nation as it currently stands.

Hero is also confused on the importance of the history of marriage in a legal context. The history of marriage is important not for rejecting same-sex marriage, but for establishing marriage as a fundamental right. So, Hero, is marriage a fundamental right? This really is the crux of the argument, if marriage is indeed a fundamental right, then the state would need a compelling state purpose to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

You see if marriage is a fundamental right, then DOMA is meaningless as it is merely a statute, and must give way if it violates a fundamental right, which are protected by the Constitution. I can guarantee there is no compelling state purpose to bar marriage from same-sex couples. The many excellent previous posts on this thread rebut nearly all of the rather lame, and often prejudiced, reasons cited by those hostile to same-sex marriage.

Now if it is not a fundamental right, then we look to the scrutiny. Hero, is right on one thing, strict scrutiny does not apply to homosexuals, but I would argue intermediate scrutiny should be used, this is typically reserved for the rights of women, but seems to fit in my mind. Even still on the lowest level of scrutiny, that of rational basis, I think the result is the same. Same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution, under equal protection.

Admittedly, the federalism question (state v. federal) makes the issue more complex, but full faith and credit applies to marriage and barring a Constitutional amendment (trust me not going to happen) same-sex marriage is on the horizon.

Tradition is insufficient of a legal argument and that is all the opposition to same-sex marriage really has. It failed in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws barring interracial marriage enacted by numerous states. Hero, reread this old case, and think instead of same-sex couples and you may get a glimpse of the future. The key is that times and values change, this is a principle of jurisprudence. As has been stated by other posts the tradition argument was used to support slavery, deny the vote to women and minorities, oppose civil rights, and so forth, and has always lost.

Hero’s analysis would have been right two decades ago, today it’s wobbly at best, and in two decades there will be same-sex marriage in the United States. Our country is strongest when it extends civil liberties and is weakest when it contracts these same rights. I also suspect that Hero and others with similiar opinions will in thirty years say that they always supported same-sex marriage. Such is the march of history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
I just don't see how denying gays the right to marry is any different from some Jim Crow law denying an interracial couple the right to marry. African-Americans were long viewed as something less than people in this country, which is exactly how you're characterizing homosexuals with your childish "what's to stop a man from marrying an animal?

You don’t see it, evidently, because you are ignoring it. Look up the word bigot. You’ll find that it more accurately applies to the pro-gay marriage camp whose inflexible position makes them ignore valid and logical reasoning in pursuit of the agenda to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot. Personally I’m fed of with this sophomoric desire to call anyone who disagrees with the Liberal position on gay marriage a bigot.

Hero has already addressed the issue you are asking about. I can't speak to the validity of this legal arguments, but his position certainly appears solid from a laymans standpiont. Gay marriage is not like the Jim Crow laws because marriage law is being applied equitably. There is no law that says that gays cannot marry; that is a myth created by proponents of the addition of law concerning same-sex marriage. Currently, to my understanding, the law does nothing but define legal federal marriage as between a man and a woman in an attempt to protect the state’s right to define marriage. You can disagree with this law, but it is not applied inequitably. All male adults regardless of sexual orientation and all female adults regardless of sexual orientation receive the same legal privileges. The gay marriage issue is not about the inequitable application of current law, but rather that addition of new law. The question is do we want to introduce NEW law defining a NEW kind of legal marriage involving same sex. Hero's position is very well stated and very clearly and logically addressed. You may disagree with it, as I do in some areas, but it is a very clear and logical position.

My own personal position is that gay marriage should be legal, and my only logical reasoning for that is that I don’t care one way or another. That’s hardly a sound argument, but it works for me. I however agree with Hero where his argument intersects the states’ rights issues. I think that the states should be allowed to define their own marriage law and that it must be done democratically through either a referendum or the state congress. Judicially established gay marriage, in my opinion, is a tyrannical use of judicial authority because I believe it tramples on the traditions of the states which define their legal and cultural values. In the absence of an inequitable application of law, the states’ laws should be defined based on the traditions and values of the people of that state through a democratic process. That is my personal opinion, how well that compares with current federal law concerning state’s rights, I cannot address.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:56 AM

So if marriage was defined to only apply to members of the same race this would be fine, because they are only defining marriage, right? No, because the States cannot implement policy that violates equal protection.

Yes, the States have considerable freedom in formulating policy, but we live in a republic with checks and balances, not a democracy. Part of that check is the courts, who ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled upon. Believe it our not our courts serve as much of a democratic function as our legislatures, perhaps more so as everyone can have their day in court.

The key question is what is marriage? Marriage is an important right that carries with it both a symbolic importance as well as a host of legal implications. Marriage is also a means of protecting children and custody rights. In all regards the denial of marriage is denying gays the right to protect their children and ensure custody rights for both parents involved in their upbringing. You cannot contract these rights and issues. This is not a theoretical argument, in some states such as Florida there is active discrimination by the state against gay parents. There are real people being hurt by these policies and while the discrimination is less than that suffered by African-Americans during Jim Crow, I hope that is not the standard being used by the United States during the 21st Century.

I have still yet to see someone give a reason, besides that's the way it is, why same-sex marriage should not be the law of the land.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:08 AM

R1Z

Hero's position that:

Quote:
Gay marriage, no. Civil unions, ok.

would hold much more water if the rights and privileges afforded by both schemes were identical, which they clearly are not.

Married folk are allowed to file IRS tax returns jointly, pairs of people in a civil union are not. There are literally hundreds of other instances having to do with insurance policies, hospital visitation rights, rights of survivorship, etc. etc.

The difference is clearly, demonstrably, much more than semantic, and that's why it won't sell.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
So if marriage was defined to only apply to members of the same race this would be fine, because they are only defining marriage, right? No, because the States cannot implement policy that violates equal protection.

Current marriage law does not, in general, violate equal protection. The law is applied equally to all involved. The gay marriage argument is about the addition of new law not the inequitable application of current law.

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
I have still yet to see someone give a reason, besides that's the way it is, why same-sex marriage should not be the law of the land.

Because the people have not decided that that is the way it should be.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:25 PM

Hawaii, Mass., and Vermont Supreme Courts have disagreed with you. The same argument was given against interracial marriage, that was seen to violate equal protection. You see the opponents of that, espoused pretty much the same position as you are.

We have decided that all Americans deserve to be treated equally. That is the law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 3:13 PM

Well some courts, or perhaps more accurately some judges, do seem to have decided that they know better then the people what laws should be legislated. They are welcome to disagree with me, but I still think that the laws should be “for the people, by the people” not “for the people, by the judges.”

As far as laws against interracial marriage, it did violate equal protection, because marriage law was not being applied equitably. The laws against interracial marriage, if I remember correctly, forbid a white person from marrying a non-white person, which means that if a white man, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia, wanted to marry a black woman he would be forbidden to do so even though the definition of marriage, as understood by the law, was between a man and a woman. The implication of this was that the marriage law was not being applied equally. White people did not have the same freedom to marry who they wanted to marry within the definition of marriage as non-white people. In the case of gay marriage the definition of marriage is applied uniformly to both gay and straight people. It equally protects all parties regardless of race or sexual orientation. So therefore how can there be a violation of equal protection? Doesn’t seem to me that there is one. Some in the pro-gay marriage camp want to create a new legal definition of marriage and then, by pass the democratic process, by saying that if you don’t sanction my new definition of marriage it means you’re a bigot. That’s absurd.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 18, 2005 4:17 PM