posted
After that last Bob post I just couldn't shake the image of 25 school kids saying, "OOOooooooooooohhhhh," in delight over the double dog dare based turn of events. You can never look a double dog dare in the eye and turn it aside , unless it involves a streetlight in the Christmas Story.
Seriously, Bob, you've just written some real rippers today, normally I bang my head against my desk in frustration reading these threads, but Bob has really eloquently argued the stand that I and quite a few others around here share, and made it possible to read this sort of thread w/o going completely bonkers w/frustration.
quote:But, to say we are denying homosexuals a right is just not accurate. What we are actually doing is giving everyone equal rights, but in the case of heterosexuals that right is much more useful than it is for homosexuals.
Riiiiiiight: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have just mailed letters to Sue Myrick, John Edwards and Elizabeth Dole. These are my congresspeople.
This is what I sent
quote: In response to the recent issues of marriage liscenses to homosexual couples in California I urge you to take action. As a member of your district I believe my views are in concert with the general views of my region. I request that you support first any legislation giving homosexuals full rights under the law to civil unions. Everyone should be entitled to inheritance, hospital rights and parental rights. These unions should not be restricted to only homosexuals but to anyone. I ask this because no one should be Justice should be blind to race, gender, and orientation. Second I ask that you protect the sacrement of marriage. Please support any bills or ammendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. Finally as a caveat, no organization or person should be compelled to preform a marriage or civil union ceremony.
quote:If laws existed that gave everyone the right to marry white wives, but none of any other race, is that equal?
No - that would mean black women couldn't marry at all, while white women could.
Now, if a law existed that said you could only marry someone of the same race, that might be equal. It would be arbitrary and unhelpful to people who want to have interracial marriages, but it would probably be equal.
It's sort of like the right to an abortion. I'm male, so the right to have an abortion doesn't really help me at all. That doesn't mean it's unequally applied, and it doesn't mean I can demand some other similar right to balance it out.
quote:I would say that heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the only gender they are naturally (perhaps genetically) attracted to.
You might say that, but probably only in this particular issue to try and make the equality argument work. I'm pretty sure that's not what the authors of the law, or the voting public, had in mind when they created the law. Otherwise, they would not have specifically disallowed gay marriage in so many states, and would not have made claims like "marriage is between a man and a woman".
quote:I have to say that of all the lame-ass justifications for not allowing gay marriage, this one has to be one of the ones that makes the least sense.
It's not a justification for not allowing gay marriage, because as I said in the same post, I think we should allow it.
However, we should be fair and reasonable about the justifications for it - and the equality argument just doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I gave above. I'm not just going to buy into any argument that gives me the conclusion I want.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were talking with some friends last night.
Basically going "so what is going to happen now" with the San Fransisco situation.
We are assuming that someone is going to file suit somewhere. The only way the marriages can be anulled is if a judge overturns them. But you will have to find a judge in CA that is going to overturn this, in a blanket fashion. This is going to be hard to find to begin with, and then it is going to get appealed up to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal courts in the country. They will come down on the side of gay marriage at which point you can see it going to the Supreme Court.
We don't see Supreme Court touching this case with a ten foot pole for quite a while (like probably another 10 years) The only way they would get involved sooner, is if it becomes a giant reciprocity fight between the states. But those reciprocity laws are different types of laws than the "married or not married" issue.
If a constitutional ammendment did go through, they can't make it retroactive. So those gay couples who are already married stay married regardless, creating a bunch of 50something gay couples that are married and a bunch of 20 and 30somethings that aren't.
A constitutional ammendment of this variety, would likely get quashed in the Senate if it made it through the House, since the Senate isn't going to get the majority of votes it needs to pass a constitutional ammendment. If it does get that far, then the states have to ratify it. If enough states don't ratify it (which they probably wouldn't) then, like the women's equal rights ammendment it would die a long slow death due to statues of limitations.
So the odds of any sort of law getting passed at the federal level is extremely slim.
posted
Tresopax, it's not so clear. The initial assumptions of the setup determine the answer every time.
Try piecing out why this is (or isn't) a problem in the following scenario [mind you, I'm not setting this up as an analogy, just as a thought experiment, and I'm interested in seeing where it goes, too]:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right.
Is there something wrong with this conclusion? Where does the wrongness come from, if it isn't there? Is it in the language (semantics), the logic, or both?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
However, in the following case, I think there is no problem:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B don't want to walk away from Building 1 (and instead want to walk away from Building 2) is irrelevant, as they could walk away from Building 1 if they wanted to. They still have the right.
The situation changes when we are talking about a right we don't want to use, rather than a right we can't use - and the former is what's going on in this thread.
posted
I have the right to demonstrate against the Bush administration. However my chice not to excercise that right does not mean I should recieve a new right of equal magnitude.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, seriously, this whole sematic thing is crap.
Racially. If a black person wanted to marry the white person he loved, but the law didn't allow it because it doesn't allow interracial marriage. The constitution states that all are equal. However, somehow one race isn't equal to another because they are negated the freedom to choose to marry whom they love.
And we say what? "Your rights aren't being violated, you just aren't choosing to exercise your right in the proper manner."
That doesn't make sense. The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love. They cannot fully exercise that right when the choices are restricted--saying that one love is not equal to another.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love.
I'm in favor of allowing civil unions. But you're using semantics as much as Tresopax is by defining the right in such a way as to presuppose your desired end.
People have the right to "marry." The traditional understanding of the word "marry" has been the joining of a man and a woman into a special relationship. You're establishing the right by redefining the word, which is a semantic argument.
Doesn't make the argument any less compelling. But it's still semantic.
I think the issue is much better categorized as a "fairness" issue in moral terms, and an "equal protection" issue (rather than equality issue) in legal terms.
It's also important to note the issues underlying semantic issues. Adovcates for homosexual marriage deny they are redefining the institution of marriage, a conclusion contrary to the every-day understanding of the term of most Americans. When trying to change wide-held beliefs, it is important to state why the new belief is in accord with more fundamental beliefs held by the people being convinced.
In this case, the argument is starting out with a perceived lie. "We're not trying to change marriage" seems like a lie when compared to the implicit understanding of "husband/wife" at the root of most people's conception of marriage.
That's why I come to this issue by making clear distinctions between the civil benefits of legally sanctioned relationships between two adults and the actual institution of marriage. In many ways this is also a semantic argument, but it nicely reconciles all my fundamental beliefs of equal protection and the sanctity of marriage.
posted
Hey, Tres, no fair mixing in new hypotheticals! I promise to play with yours later, if you play with mine now.
quote:Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
So, the problem with my hypothetical as first stated is that the members of Group B cannot be said to have that right, because they cannot exercise it, correct?
And so one could modify the hypothetical as follows:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship. That was about the best letter I've ever read.
Now, take it to your church. When you hear people saying "I don't want to hurt gays, just protect marriage..." give them a copy of your letter and ask them to send it to their representatives too.
I'm so impressed.
Hey, Dagonee, have you written your letter yet? We need more!
Belle? Could you add your letter to the mix? Would your church sign on to something like this?
And how about the rest of the people here who are just angry and frustrated. Let's DO something before Congress goes off and remakes this issue into something we don't want.
Imagine if just 50 people a day wrote to their House and Senate representative just to say: Don't do one without the other. Make it fair to everyone.
Just imagine.
Tell a friend.
Heck, tell an enemy.
Wouldn't it be great if for once someone got rights in America without having to stage a bunch of protests? Can't we just recognize the problem and fix it?
I say it's time for America to grow up. And this is a great opportunity to show how we've gotten past our divisiveness over every issue.
If we can do this one, I bet you would could solve a lot of other issues too.
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
Any problems?
No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote last year to my state representatives.
When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
posted
Dagonee, sounds good to me. That's a far more eloquent and informed version of what I wrote to TX Senator Cornyn -- the one who's been tapped to write the bill.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could care less if gays marry, but I was wondering, if gays can marry what will keep polygamy from being legal.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the legal connection beyond "extending a right, why not extend it further?"
I also don't see the problem with polygamy. I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good. Lets assume those rights are relatively equal in monetary value and useful value. Then great. Polygamy should be legal.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
quote:When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
quote: I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good.
I see huge problems with this - more than half the legal use of marriage is the convenience factor. Who consents to medical care if I can't? My spouse.
If "spouse" were "spouses," then it would have to be "the spouse I've designated to do so." Which means I'd have to designate someone, which means marriage provided no legal convenience in this scenario. This can be repeated with most questions in which "my spouse" would be the default legal answer.
Interesting historical fact: Did you know bigamy was one of the only strict-liability crimes punishable by death under English common law? No excuse could save you, although an excuse might get you a pardon.
posted
Dagonee: I think it's really hard, or really unlikely to draw up a suitable legal formula for polygamy. But I don't think it's impossible.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't see how allowing civil unions for homosexual couples automatically leads to polygamy.
Like I said...just don't have them in your church, then. There you go. Your religion isn't involved; it's only the government. Hooray.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I'm a little puzzled. Why exactly is it such a disgrace to limit rights via an amendment? Not every imaginable right really ought to be available to people.
To avoid turning this into the usual "right to murder" circus, try this: suppose that studies indicated that 75% of voters between 18 and 21 claimed to vote "for whoever I felt like at the time" and an additional 10% "for someone at random". In addition, 64% agreed that "I made a mistake to vote for the candidate I did". Would it be a disgrace to amend the Constitution and raise the voting age back to 21, thus limiting rights? (I don't really think 18--21-year-olds are that irresponsible, but it's not beyond belief.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus- That would be imprudent because that is a matter of equal rights. If a person can be forced to fight and die for his country in a war he doesn't support then he should be able to choose the person who does or does not allow that to happen.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if, by his own admission, he didn't have a clue what he was doing when he voted? (Which, again, I am not saying is the case.)
All I'm saying is that at least one logical reason to limit existing rights would be if it turned out that the people whom they had been given to turned out not to be adequately qualified to exercise them.
posted
It's the same situation when you have defense attorneys defending a man they know is guilty. You aren't fighting for that man so much as you are for the system.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Constitution is the founding document of our country. As such, it does two things:
1) It defines the structure of the federal government and enumerates the powers granted to each branch.
2) It places limits on the actions that the federal government and/or the state government can take. When these limits are aimed at protecting individuals, we call them rights.
The Constitution is designed to limit actions of government, not people. Neither the state nor the federal government may restrict the free exercise of religion, or limit free speech, or deprive people of life, liberty (as in physical restraint), or property without due process of law. There are other restrictions on government actions as well.
But the 18th Amendment is the only place in the Constitution that restricts the actions of individuals (namely the the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors).
Of course the government is given the power to restrict lots of individual actions. It can ban prostitution, drug use, and states could absolutely ban alcohol if they wanted to. The key feature of all this is that the political branches (those responsible directly to the people) have to take some action for these restrictions to occur. And the same branches can undo their own actions if such restrictions are found to be ill-conceived.
Why is it set up this way? Because the Constitution is a constraint on both the current and future generations, both of the people and the government. It is hard to amend, purposefully so. Such constraints need to be taken very seriously, and should be reserved for preserving liberty, not taking it.
The Constitution is a beautiful document. It sets up horizontal checks and balances between three branches of federal government and vertical checks and balances between the federal and the state governments. Federal law is treated as superior to state law, but is limited in the areas in which it may speak. And both states and the federal government are prevented from intruding on some core sphere governed by each individual.
An amendment to say, "Neither the state nor federal government may grant a particular right to a particular type of people" is ugly, both philosophically and aesthetically. It offends my political scientist's soul that one of the crowning achievements in governance should be so marred.
The beauty of the Constitution and how it's interpreted is that it acts as a ratchet - the individual liberty it enshrines expands much more easily than it contracts. This is why the ugliness integrated in its beginnings has been slowly excised. (Incidentally, it's also why I don't want the text amended to remove the 3/5 clause or the importation of people clause - we need the reminder of where we've come from.) Only once has war been required to correct one of its flaws. Despite all the ugliness in our history, the Constitution has survived multiple crises and emerged better for it each time.
It's an instrument that allows us to strive to be better than we are, to take our gains in respect and dignity as we make them, and to keep those gains even when our human nature tries to make us backslide.
posted
Dagonee, I can see the logic of what you are suggesting. In fact, you have largely convinced me.
One hole remains, however, and that is the power of the Supreme Court. With rare exceptions, the only way to check the effects of a bad ruling is the amendment process. We can argue either way on what specific rulings might be bad--a few I cannot imagine more than a few remnant groups arguing are good (Dred Scott being the classic, if cliche, example)--but clearly it is possible that some Court will one day make another disastrous ruling. If that ruling is one that expands rather than limits rights, how do you propose the matter be fixed? Or do you think that no conceivable ruling that expands rights can be that bad? (IMHO, a ruling that expands someone's rights often ends up limiting the rights of someone else that a court did not consider.)
I could wish that sometime early in our history, a president had begun the use of the power to pardon as a check on the power of the Court, but it is a little late for that. And, of course, the cure might have proven worse than the disease.
posted
In the case where people's rights are being upheld at the expense of other people's rights, then the amendment could be written to protect the "other people's" rights being infringed - so that scenario doesn't worry me too much. This is, of course, my hope for the abortion issue. A constitutional amendment to ban abortion would not be written to make abortion illegal but to empower Congress or state legislatures to pass legislation to protect certain rights of the unborn.
Of course, many people disagree with my interpretation of the issue. But the point is it can be couched in those terms and still pass the laugh test. I can't imagine how a "defense of marriage" amendment could be couched in terms of protecting rights.
quote:Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
Well, in this case, equality is a tricky matter. After all, now the rule has limited who it applies to - only people not shackled. Some statements of this form are going to be unequal, like "Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't black." The deciding factor, I think, is whether the limitation has been arbitrarily added by the government (as in the example with blacks), or whether it follows reasonably from the right itself. For instance, it follows from the right to leave Building 1 that people shackled to the ground naturally won't be able to have that right. You might say this is unfair of nature for having these people shackled, but unless it was the government who kept them shackled, the government cannot be blamed for not being able to give them the right that others have. It is simply not practical given the constraints those people have. Whereas, if the rule limited blacks from leaving the building, the government is simply choosing to do this without having to, and thus is responsible for the inequality.
So, to answer your question, at least as far as the government is concerned, this right is being given equally and discrimination is not occuring. You might say God or Nature or whoever caused these certain people to be shackled are disrciminating against them, but I think we are talking about the government's responsibilities in these examples, no?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If polygamy became legal, what would be the great harm in that? I mean, just because the majority of people think it a strange arrangement, the only part of modern polygamy that are truly worrisome in terms of a state's interest in the issue would be marriage of underage people (females).
Insurers might have a problem with it -- imagine taking out a family policy to cover half a dozen adults and all their children. But frankly even that seems like there'd be a way to work around it.
And if they were entering into a civil union, does it really matter how many people are in the corporation?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have to agree with CT. You're a rare creature, Dagonee -- I don't think I've ever "met" a conservative (aside from Geoff) that has the knack or ability for eloquent, reasonable discussion that you do. I hope you stick around to help show me if I'm ever wrong. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm bound to be wrong someday, if only to give the law of averages meaning.
[edited to insert Geoff; there are so few of your breed, how can I forget to include the other one?]
posted
Dagonee, now that you are a Hatracker (or Jatrequero, to be more exact), we are sworn to defend you against vile outsiders. Well, after the official ceremonies take place. But don't worry about that -- you don't have to do anything but show up.
Lalo, we're on a roll lately. sndrake, Dagonee, Brinestone, Farmgirl, lots of neat folk being folded into the pack. Mega-good Hatrack vibes out there.
posted
I swear to God I'm more eloquent in real life. However (I swear this is true) the muscles in my hands didn't form well so my hands cramp up if I write/type too long.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, a homosexuality thread with people complimenting people. And meaning it. Bonus points for everyone involved
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, CT, Brinestone's been around longer than I have, but she lurks a lot and took a long break from Hatrack before she met me. So she only seems new.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I haven't actually read the whole thread, but I have to say that I'm in agreement with Lalo (except about Gavin Newsom because I don't know anything about the man.). I don't have a problem with gay couples getting the tax breaks and and choice to promise to stay with each other and all the other marriage benefits ect. I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner, because San Francisco has one of the largest gay communities in the nation.
How could this hurt anybody? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, unless it involves a streetlight in the Christmas Story. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
