quote: Gay couples began exchanging marriage vows in Massachusetts on Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of at least five countries where homosexuals can legally wed.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
*sigh* I've commented on every other homosexuality thread. No comment here. *sick of the world* Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Equality begins with little steps.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"Same Sex Couples Sign Pieces of Paper Giving Them The Same Legal Rights As Married People."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Polio unless you are an old timer under a new screenname I highly doubt you've commented on every gay marriage thread on hatrack.
AJ
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, but it may seem like it. After the first thirty or forty, they all blend together...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm not a fan of some of the cities not doing place of residence checks on couples; I know it isn't usually done on non-resident heterosexuals, but if the same-sex opponents can abide by the rule of law, so can the same-sex advocates.
I am, however, glad that this is happening though.
-Bok
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
"Same Sex Couples Sign Pieces Of Paper Allowing Them To Do Publicly What They've Been Doing Privately All Along" Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
quote: Polio unless you are an old timer under a new screenname I highly doubt you've commented on every gay marriage thread on hatrack.
They're all the same.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
It's been said before, and I'll say it again. Troll.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: "Same Sex Couples Sign Pieces Of Paper Allowing Them To Do Publicly What They've Been Doing Privately All Along"
Well, not publicly.
There still are decency codes you know.
We'll save the public exhibitions of affection for Paris Hilton and friends.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Same Sex Couples Finally Allowed to Make Their Loving Relationships a Productive Part of Society and the Community"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So they wouldn't have been productive or useful without being called married?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Equality begins with little steps.
Well, semantic equality in this case...
"Same Sex Couples Finally Allowed To Legally Give A New And Possibly (Or Possibly Not) Misleading Name For What They've Been Able To Do All Along"
[ May 17, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
More than semantic equality. For the next 18 months, anyway.
-Bok
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I'm just glad that two people in love can choose whether they want that "little piece of paper" or not.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's serious doubt that Massachuessets will be able to revoke these marriages if its amendment passes in 2006. However, any granted in violation of the 1913 law to non-residents are probably toast if that amendment is passed.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, I think there isn't much to the legal aspects yet. Especially since I think the 1913 law has about a 50/50 chance of being overturned, at least, if it is applied to all couples uniformly. If it isn't overturned, then we essentially have civil unions in MA, and it's up to the state constitutional amendment(s) to decide things.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ryan, is that from the Goodrich opinion? If that quote is talking about the federal constitution, then it may not apply in this case (since this is a state issue currently). What applies to the federal government may not apply to some stays, in this regard.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:So they wouldn't have been productive or useful without being called married?
I'm in the "provide a social structure and you'll see homosexual promiscuity lessen" camp. Couples that don't have to hide their relationships, can work towards stronger personal and financial bonds because they don't have to worry about legalities, couples that don't have to take so many extra steps to be able to make hospital visits or deal with child custodies, those couples strengthen society much more than couples that hide, lie, or break up over social pressure and ostracization.
Edited to add: started writing this before the thread swung to the legal aspects, sorry.
[ May 17, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ryan, except that marriage isn't ONLY a religiously significant event. Since the law is only applying to civil law, I think the religious aspect will be ignored and not factor into any opinion (in MA, at least).
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I'm in the "provide a social structure and you'll see homosexual promiscuity lessen" camp. Couples that don't have to hide their relationships, can work towards stronger personal and financial bonds because they don't have to worry about legalities, couples that don't have to take so many extra steps to be able to make hospital visits or deal with child custodies, those couples strengthen society much more than couples that hide, lie, or break up over social pressure and ostracization.
But we're talking about people who claim to love each other with a life-long love ANYWAY, and call each other life partners. Isn't it belittling the commitment they have for each other by saying it will fall apart if they can't sign the paper?
I truly believe that a person chooses to be or not to be promiscuous based on a worldview. Either they believe promiscuity is wrong, or they don't. Allowing them to get married won't change the fact that they don't see anything wrong with having many different partners. If they thought it was wrong, they wouldn't do it. (I'm not talking about all homosexuals here, but rather the ones that we're defining as promiscuous.)
[ May 17, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ryan, this all conjecture, but here goes.
Under the U.S. Constitution, there are two clauses that might be used to attack a ban on gay marriage.
The first is substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Basically, some rights are so fundamental that denial of them with individual findings ("procedural due process") is unconstitutional. These include most rights under the first 8 amendments and some other "implied rights." Lawrence v. Texas was decided on these grounds in striking down anti-sodomy laws. The right to reproductive control (contraception, abortion) and interstate travel are two of the big ones. (This clause was used at the beginning of this century to strike down a host of social/economic welfare acts such as minimum wage/maximum hour laws on the theory they interfered with the right to contract. This trend was reversed during the New Deal.) Marriage has been found to be a fundamental right as well, but tradition and history are used when defining these rights. Given the makeup of the court, I doubt more than 2 would find a substantive due process right to homosexual marriage, since no state has ever authorized it and only 4 other countries do so now.
Even if they did find that a fundamental right is implicated, it's not clear what type of scrutiny the law would have to pass. Given the nature of child-bearing, even today, states could easily pass a "rational basis" test, since the well-being of children is a legitimate state interest, and fostering the relationships which lead to child birth is a legitimate means to that interest. The rational basis test is very deferential, so the under- and over-exclusiveness of heterosexual-only-marriage as a state policy would likely be allowed. Even intermediate scrutiny might be satisfied, since reproduction is very important to marriage. Again, though, it is doubtful there would be a majority in favor of this line of reasoning.
The other available clause is the equal protection clause. The closest case on point is Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. However, the reasoning in that case was that race is ALWAYS a suspect classification, so any law that uses is must pass what is called "strict scrutiny." This requires a showing that the law serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is narrowly tailored to meet that state interest. Classification by gender requires "intermediate scrutiny," or an important government interest substantially related to the classification used. Other classifications only require a rational basis, which is very deferential.
Here, many of the side-benefits of marriage might come into play, such as taxation rights, next-of-kin laws, etc. The court might find that marriage may be restricted, but some of the rights associated with marriage should be available to non-married couples. I’m thinking tax benefits, probate law, etc. However, such a ruling might be so difficult to implement the court wouldn’t bother.
(Incidentally, this is why I think civil marriage should be equally available – because the legal conveniences of the marriage relationship are now mostly not directly related to child-rearing. Child-rearing legal benefits are largely available to unmarried couples now.)
I seriously doubt that this Supreme Court will rule to require gay marriage.
The Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have interpreted their STATE constitutions to require gay marriage, which means SCOTUS can’t affect their decision.
However, there are two additional issues: First, if Massachusetts subsequently amends their constitution to ban gay marriage, what happens to the existing marriages? This would involve interpretations of the state and federal Constitutions. In general, the government has a harder time revoking a benefit than it does in denying it under the due process clause.
Second, how must other states treat these gay marriages? That is answered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, which says states have to respect judgments and official decisions made in other states. However, Congress can define this to a large extent, and the DMA will probably be upheld if it is challenged. Even without the DMA, states would have a good shot at not recognizing gay marriages made in other states absent Congressional action mandating it.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, it's more than just signing a paper, it's greasing the bureaucratic and legal wheels to ease situations that create relationship friction. Unless you are in the "The State shouldn't give any privileges for civil marriage" camp. There are pragmatic concerns here. They may stay together regardless, but they'll never be able to provide for their partner in the same way that heterosexual life partners can, via civil marriage. ---
I think that in the MA constitution there was reasonable evidence that same-sex civil marriage ought to be legalized. In the federal government, perhaps less so.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The paper's not the point. The place in society is.
Young homosexuals have no legal social structure available to them. Their only options are to deny it and have a straight marriage or stay single and have same-sex lovers without any legal incentive to stay together and quite a bit of social pressure to break up. Every argument you can offer as to why straight couples should marry rather than stay single also applies to gay couples.
I'd like kids growing up to know that the goal is commitment, and that being gay doesn't exempt you from that. I'd like kids who realize they're gay to still feel they're part of the community.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think my major problem is with the use of the term marriage. I know, people wonder why a married couple would feel threatened by a homosexual marriage, but it's not that hard to understand. I think a doctor would be confused and upset to learn that the government was giving lawyers the right to practice medicine and go by "M.D." Not to mention that they'd fight like heck to stop it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag- I thought about that. I think they can, it's not ex post facto if its an Ammendment. Remember "a law repugnatnt to the Constitution is void."
It's not a question of Ex Post Facto, it's a question of due process. And state constitutions have the exact same standing as state statutes when they come up against the federal constitution - they have to pass the same tests.
As for the amendment to the federal Constitution, that would possibly void the marriages. Yet another reason to oppose it, in my opinion. The last time a Constitutional amendment deprived people of a property right in a sweeping manner like that was the 14th, which denied the validity of debts owed by the Confederacy and claims by slaveholders who were suddenly deprived of their p"property" by emancipation."
The gay-marriage amendment wouldn't have quite the same moral force as that amendment.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Whooo hooo!
Now I only need to find a boyfriend... Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Theres been a recent move at the SCOTUS level towards whats being called "Rational basis-plus." Essentially, states have to show that their rational basis for having a law is really rational. Justice O'connor has used this reasoning in the last few years, for example, in Lawrence v Texaas.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I know, people wonder why a married couple would feel threatened by a homosexual marriage, but it's not that hard to understand.
It is for me. Two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their days building a life with each other, want to raise children, want their finances and properties tied together, want courts and hospitals to consider them next-of-kin. That's not a marriage?
quote:I think a doctor would be confused and upset to learn that the government was giving lawyers the right to practice medicine and go by "M.D." Not to mention that they'd fight like heck to stop it.
And they should, since lawyers have not been shown to be proficient in medicine and could not pass the requirements for such a title. What are the requirements for a successful marriage? Are straight people required to be proficient?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
True.
The Supreme Court's crazy anyway. I just wrote a paper on the Supreme Court's history of infringing on the powers of Congess.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ryan, that's not surprising, you could also probably write an article about how Congress has been ceding it's powers to both branches, but particularly the executive branch.
Executive Orders, anyone?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True - rational basis plus dates back to Cleburne, which struck down a denial of a group permit home under a rational basis determination.
It's still too new for me to predict how it'll be applied, though. Given the closeness of Lawrence, and O'Connor's refusal to use substantive due process to strike down the law, I stand by my prediction. I think she ruled that way specifically to allow her room to strike down gay marriage.
Of course, guessing how the Supreme Court will rule is iffy at best.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
CB- No, straight people are required for it to be a marriage, period. So it would be impossible for gay people to have a proficient marriage. Maybe they can have a proficient something else.
It's hard to say that, because people get so offended that I'd be willing to say that one requirement of marriage is a man and a woman. But that's what it IS. You can call a square a circle, but it still has four corners. You can say, "My what a great job he's doing being a four-cornered circle." But it remains that you have to change the definition of circle in order to include squares. Now, the definition of circle no longer means circle, but two-dimensional object having either equal distance from a radius, or four equal sides and four 90 degree angles, or whatever else we decide to call it in the future.
[ May 17, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
PSI, my contention is that the last 50 years HAVE redefined marriage to at least that great an extent.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yes, but there are those of us who remember the people who changed the rules, remember what it was before semantics took over, remember what it was before making everybody blissfully happy became more important than anything else, and still remember that a square is not a circle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"No, straight people are required for it to be a marriage, period."
Except that this is not a given. I -- and many others -- am not willing to concede this.
As you and many others have abysmally failed to prove this point over DOZENS of gay rights conversations, why don't you just give this one up and move to an argument with a shred of validity to it?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Circles do NOT have to have round sides to be circles. Let's just tweak this definition here. There, that's better.
See! See, they do not have to have round sides! My dictionary says so!
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ah. So whoever postulates the most emphaticly is right.
Great logic Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI, the problem you're having is that the definition you're insisting is absolutely authoritative is NOT considered authoritative by many of the people here.
So you're not being persuasive.
As far as I'm concerned, you're standing on a soapbox yelling, "Apples are not fruit! Apples are not fruit!" And while I can't hope to persuade you that they ARE, I certainly hope you understand that those of us who disagree aren't swayed by your premises.
-----
Ryan, if I were to ask a hundred people what they would call a "legal union between two adults who love each other and seek social sanction of their lifelong commitment," I GUARANTEE you that they'd answer "marriage" in a heartbeat. The essential definition of "marriage" is the "love" and "social sanction" and "lifelong" bits, NOT any "man and woman" bit.
If you doubt me, try it yourself some time.
[ May 17, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, you have it backward. You are yelling that cucumbers are fruit, when 99% percent of the people in history would have argued that they weren't. For me to stand on the side of the majority of every human being that's ever lived, it puts YOU in the position of explaining why I should accept a cucumber as a fruit.
Maybe I should have picked a safer veggie. I'm even tempted to put MYSELF in OOC. Oh well.
[ May 17, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom,
The redefinition aspect was the final hurdle I had to overcome to arrive at my position. There's a lot of power in it, but the power is only evident to one side of the debate.
I really think addressing this issue is what's needed to tip the scales. People who are truly anti-homosexual aren't going to change their mind and support equal gay civil marriage rights, just as people who don't subscribe to more "traditional" sexual mores can understand what the big fuss is about.
It's fairly traditional, religious people shifting their view on civil marriage who will make up the bulk of the converts on this issue. PSI's argument isn't intended to change YOUR mind - it's an attempt to explain her position.
Simply dismissing it as invalid will not change her mind. If you want to change hearts on this issue, you HAVE to attempt to understand the underlying beliefs on the traditional family and show how they are not threatened by civil gay marriage.
Because you're not going to get them (or me, for that matter) to change those underlying beliefs.
Dagonee
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Can't we just be happy that these people are finally getting to have legal relationships?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Of course not.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I suppose I could set aside everything I've ever believed in and put on a big happy smile. I'm well aware that making everyone happy IS the ultimate goal here, so I'll go along. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can support. Marriage is between one man and his dead brother's wife, as required by God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and her female slave. Marriage is between one man, a few wives, and an assortment of concubines. Marriage is between one man and a woman captured in war. Marriage is between one man and the woman he raped, if he doesn't want to be executed. Marriage is between one male slav and the female slave his master gives him. Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other. Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race.
Marriage has changed even in the last century. While it was still one man, one woman, it was expected to be an extended family with older relatives being supported by younger ones. The exodus of families from the country to urban areas helped change this over time to the nuclear family of one man, one woman, and kids.
I challenge you to find anywhere, on this site or any other, where I have supported gay marriage because people deserved to be "blissfully happy." If anything I have advocated more commitment, not less.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dragon, PSI basically summed it up correctly, but the failure to recognize legitimate concerns by and on both sides does nothing to achieve consensus. Especially when the normal debate process is not only short-circuited but absolutely circumvented by a Court decision that can't be overturned for 2 years.
Dagonee
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
*throws in with Chris*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other.
Which group was this? I'll have to research it. I wonder if the men had sex with the women, or each other. In every other instance you named, you still have the basic, fundamental union of man and woman.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Dagonee- The debate process WASN"T circumvented. That case was in the courts for a WHILE, and the issue had been brought up in legislative bodies in MA several times prior to the decision.
I love this whole argument that courts circumvent the debate process. Its so uterly untrue as to be hilarious, but it seems to work...
Cases are brought before courts because either a law was broken, or someone believes a law was broken, or someone believes their rights are being violated by a law or the implementation of a law. The court system is supposed to provide a remedy if any of these happen to be true.
But cases don't just appear in front of Supreme courts overnight. They percolate through the court system. In this case, the SC found that MA state law violates the constitution, and therefore teh debate process had FAILED, in terms of the structure of the legal system within the united states.
The debate had been happening in MA, and the courts found that the debate didn't matter, under the framework of the constitution, one side didn't have any legs to stand on.
This isn't circumventing debate, anymore then it would be circumventing debate if a law were passed stating that torture were legal, a prisoner had his arms cut off, and brought his case to the courts, and the SC found that the law violated the principle of "no cruel or unusual punishment."
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Marriage is between two people. (Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal <common law>)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
and Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden... (though I don't know the exact wording of those laws)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not going to rehash the whole counter-majoritatian debate with you. Regardless of what you think of the issue, the fact that it was decided by a court makes it generate more controversy than if it was decided by the legislature.
Does that mean the courts shouldn't be able to overturn laws? No. But it does mean that one side of the debate is going to feel disenfranchised after.
And in this case, circumvented is exactly the right word. It is very likely that the Mass. Constitution will be amended in 2 years (which is legally as fast as it can be amended) specifically to overturn this decision.
Let's be real clear about this: UNJUST DOES NOT EQUAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Dagonee
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Tom- True, but I doubt it would work that way if you asked them to define marriage.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'll toss one in for good measure:
Marriage is an institution of the rich upper classes for the purpose of protecting property rights. Nine times out of 10 historically the poor had none of the legal advantages of marriage that are offered today.
AJ
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Self-declared communal marriages in the 60's. Not officially sanctioned, but I still count them as an experiment in social engineering.
Can we say that we disagree and stop there? I can answer every argument you have with an equally compelling response, and neither of us will ever convince the other. All we'll do is continue yet another multi-page gay marriage thread. If you stand on tradition I'll start listing all the other grand traditions we've cherished over the millenia that have been dropped after we came to our senses. If you argue about the harm to straight marriage I'll argue for legal gay marriage and a tightening of divorce laws as a better alternative. Pleas of immorality and sin are useless since I'm irreligious and I've been arguing for more responsibility, more commitment, more social structure with every post I make. I understand your concerns, but I can't accept them, while it appears that you can never accept mine.
Couldn't we just link to the last time and go talk about Troy some more? Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Still, man and woman. It's not as much what it IS as what it is NOT. You have circles of different sizes, colors, and textures, but never before did they have four corners. Why should I believe it's a circle?
Chris, you are misunderstanding me. I'm not going to argue against letting homosexuals have a legal contract or a union or whatever, because I honestly don't care if they want to do that. It has nothing to do with me. I just feel sad that they want to take a term that is special to me and make it into a blanket that covers everyone, everything, and eventually will cover unions with children who "really love each other and want a lifelong commitment" and a man and his dog. Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him. I'm saying that love and a life-long commitment does not a marriage make. Lots of people have them or want them and are not getting married.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Marriage is an attempt to channel male evolutionary-derived imperatives into a more socially beneficial paradigm.
Edit: Not that I beleive this one, but it's got some plausibility.
[ May 17, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And in this case, circumvented is exactly the right word."
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to gay marriage in MA prior to this court decision.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why should I believe that a black man in America should be able to read or write? They couldn't for the first hundred years or so. In fact, why should I believe that a conquering race shouldn't have the right to enslave its foes? There's a tradition that's been around a while. Why should I believe that women should be allowed to vote, hold property, make their own decisions, or in any way be considered equal to men? That's been around even longer. Why should I believe that children shouldn't marry at 13 or younger? That's a fairly recent change. What's this new-fangled "adolescent" stuff?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Paul:
Obviously, I have. Jeez.
There's a debate going on. 4 people decide the debate is irrelevant and declare a winner. That's circumvented.
I'm not arguing about whether the decision was right or should have been decided that way (two different things, by the way). I'm arguing that dismissing the well-intentioned people on the other side of an argument is not going to build consensus, especially when the possibility of consensus has already been damaged by a countermajoritarian decision.
Dagonee
[ May 17, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
PSI, you ignored my example of a case in which marriage is between two people, not defined by gender.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't do reductio ad absurdum arguments.
My belief in the benefits of gay marriage is based on my conviction that it will ultimately strengthen society. It is not so people can do whatever they want, or marry their dogs or underage kids or their Buick, for that matter. There are plenty of arguments against those situations, but I've yet to hear compelling ones against gay marriage that don't boil down to "we've always done it this way, and most people won't like it."
But you're right. Let's really strengthen marriage. No gays. No more divorces either, no matter what the reason. Abusive husband? Tough, stick it out, it's traditional. Marriages are for men and women only, one each, that's it. Oh, and only if they can have kids. Infertile or impotent people can't get married, sorry. Adultery should be punishable by stoning. People should get married as soon as they are physically capable of breeding, anyway. Women get one period as a single person, that's it, and then they get married off quick. Single parenthood is forbidden, and mates will be assigned to you if you need one.
Wow, it's easy to do the slippery slope thing, isn't it?
[ May 17, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"There's a debate going on. 4 people decide the debate is irrelevant and declare a winner. That's circumvented."
No its not. The debate had been going on for ten yeas, and failed to do anything. The court said "the status quo is violating rights, and is unconstitutional." The debate is STILL going on, but the framework for which the debate needs to be carried out in has been clarified, and those whose rights were violated by the status quo have had a remedy applied.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Chris: Thanks for ignoring what I said about "what is isn't" rather than "what it is".
Suneun: I'm sorry. Not purposeful. Aren't those examples of countries that have only recently started allowing gay marriages? (I don't include common law, sorry. According to common law, I'm married to my mom.)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Are you trying to argue that history implies something is more correct?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, it's more like I totally disagree with the direction the world is moving.
Posted by Altril of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
The same thing is happening in Cailfornia. Gay marriage is now legal. Talk about the world going upside down...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine, instead of declaring a winner they've changed the rules upon which victory is based. It's still a circumvention, just not permanent.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You said "I just feel sad that they want to take a term that is special to me and make it into a blanket that covers everyone, everything, and eventually will cover unions with children who "really love each other and want a lifelong commitment" and a man and his dog. Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him."
None of those situations has been suggested, yet you imply that allowing gay mariage ensures their happening.
"I'm saying that love and a life-long commitment does not a marriage make. Lots of people have them or want them and are not getting married."
True. But they have the option.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him."
Then you haven't read any of the other gay marriage threads.
To me, marriage is about consensual, lifelong, romantic love: the union of spirits in a committed partnership. That's its essence, the core of its meaning, and the meaning that ANYONE you ask will say modern marriage is intended to have. Everything else is a rider.
So, let's look at that whole consensual bit. Clearly, consent is essential to marriage in its modern form; that's why we ask all partners if they're entering into the union willingly. Can a dog consent? No. Can a twelve-year-old child consent? No -- although I'll concede that this last determination is somewhat arbitrary, as we've just basically picked an age at which people are old enough to consent to things (not, mind you, that this is a bad approach).
In other words, the dog and the child are completely irrelevant to the argument.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:You are yelling that cucumbers are fruit, when 99% percent of the people in history would have argued that they weren't.
"Cucumbers"? "Fruit"? Look, PSI, I respect your stance, but you don't have to stoop to shallow innuendo and name-calling.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, those examples have been refuted to death in the other threads we've had. Coming up with tired old bad arguments is not a good way to support one's position.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
PSI, from what you imply, gay marriage somehow dillutes the value of every one else's marriage. I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion (you've already said that this makes you sad, which I don't really want to know about).
Also, just to toss in my 2 cents, marrying animals is illegal (or at least isn't allowed) because of a lack of consent on both parties. This line of thinking is carried on over to marrying kitchen appliances and other inanimate objects.
You can marry a 12 year old kid for several reasons. First off is the fact that they are a minor, and as such, they're unable to consent to marriage until they're 18 (or unless their parent or guardian gives them permission).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Same sex couples marry in Massachusetts
Thank God!
Prediction: Massachusetts will not fall into the ocean. Or, if it doesn't it will take New Jersey with it.
Prediction: Massachusetts youngsters will not grow up wanting to marry their ponies in any greater proportion than heretofore.
Prediction: In 50 years when the next big social crisis is manufactured to divide us, we'll look back on these poor beknighted times and wonder what the fuss was about. And our grandchildren will laugh at us.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Having spent all this time responding to PSI's arguments, now I'm ducking over to the other side for a moment. Or, possibly, stepping away from both sides to take another look.
I would be lying if I said that legalizing gay marriage would not have its costs. And I don't presume that allowing gays to marry will usher in a new and wonderful world where everyone respects each other and animated birds sing to us.
The events in Massachusetts are guaranteed to provoke a backlash and I have no idea what will happen. There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that. There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance. There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own. And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
While I still believe that denying the legal contract of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory and divisive, I am not blind to the hazards. While I'm convinced that the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of gay marriage is that most people don't like it, rather than any inherent flaw or insufficiency in the concept itself, it may very well be that's enough and we'll have to accept that a majority of people in the world, for whatever reason, will never be able to accept it and this fight will last forever.
These issues do trouble me, where the rote recital of bible verses and the hoary invocation of traditions do not, not a bit. These are the issues I would rather spend time on.
[ May 17, 2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Maybe I'm an idiot here, but if people against gay marriage don't think gays should be able to marry because it's threatening to a heterosexual marriage, what kind of threat are all the marriages that happen in Vegas on a whim? It seems like there's a lot more working to tear the institution of marriage, however you define marriage, down than what the genders of people marrying one another are.
space opera
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
I'm late to the party as usual.
quote:I'm well aware that making everyone happy IS the ultimate goal here, so I'll go along.
The sarcasm is noted, but would making everybody as happy as possible really be such a terrible ultimate goal?
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Marraige is between TWO, LIVING, HUMANs. That's all I care for. Anything else is just ridiculous.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Space Opera, I would say that most of us that are against gay marriage are also against the trivializing of marriage that happens at Vegas.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that.
Why must stating its existance and stopping be a requirement? Should homosexuality be forever stigmatized? Now maybe I am misreading and you are saying that they are promoting people choose a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. First, why do you think they would? Second, do you really think a person's sexual orientation is that fickle? Are we back to people saying its a choice?
quote:There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance.
What do you mean by that? Them NOT HIDING their homosexuality is what you fear? I am confused here.
quote:There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own.
Ah, so you DO want the stigma to remain. What is wrong with kids expirementing with it? What are these "problems of its own"? These vague, nothing fears are EXACTLY whats so infuriating about the arguments against gay marriage. They use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. I repeat, what is wrong with them experimenting with their own sex? Isn't that SAFER than with the opposite sex (pregnancy)?
quote:And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
Explain how. Really. I'd like to hear this. In reality, the only people who would think it hurts marriage are the very religious. Hmmm, seems like these people would hold religion very dear no matter who gets to do it. Is that the fear? That a religious person would otherwise think that marriage is sacred, but that if they let gays get it, then gosh darn I guess that means its not sacred anymore. Free sex for all!
Really Chris, I've come to expect better from you.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's posts like the above that galvanize each side against the other. Chris, who is obviously on the side for gay marriage, makes a post saying that he can see where the other side is coming from, gets flamed for doing so. There are so many people (on both sides) that just want to shout down the opposing arguments. As was said before, it is as though the side that yells loudest and gets offended the most must be right. It makes me sad.
Edit: Sorry for editing out what Xavier was responding to.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Have you asked a homosexual if they chose it?
How about we ask Caleb, Karl, or Telperion.
Oh wait, ALL THREE SAID THEY HAD NO CHOICE.
And further, I asked MORE real life people and they agreed they didn't have a choice.
I didn't choose to be heterosexual, and they didn't choose to be gay.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that they said that. Well, I knew that Karl and Telperion said that.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So are all the homosexuals on earth lying then?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Brother. I didn't say here that I thought it was wasn't a choice. All I said was (I edited it out before I thought that anybody had read it):
quote:
quote: Are we back to people saying its a choice?
Why not?
You imply that it is ludicrous to consider the idea that it is a choice. My only point was that there is no concensus, and that it is unreasonable to dismiss that idea out-of-hand just because you do not agree with it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
But he WASN'T saying he can understand that side.
He was listing several irrational fears of the other side and saying they are true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems as though you are saying is that people that are concerned about those things need to stop caring about those things. You roll your eyes and those concerns and expect people to feel better? It does the opposite.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Did I roll my eyes?
Refute what I told Chris if those fears are well founded then please.
[ May 18, 2004, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
mph,
I'm sure that those against gay marriage are against Vegas marriages, etc. I guess I was just trying to say that I hear many who oppose gay marriage just being anti-gay marriage and focusing on that instead of building up an institution which they claim is sacred. It seems to be the case of simply sticking a finger in a dike instead of building a new one. Not that anyone here has exhibited this behavior; it was just an observation of my own.
space opera
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
No need to be vulgar. Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course they talk about gay marriage in a gay marriage thread. That's what the thread is about!
If you have something to say about building up marriage (besides why aren't people talking about it here), then start a thread.
[ May 18, 2004, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
'scuse me
space opera
edit: not sure why my post has caused you to respond in an unfriendly manner - sorry, I'll leave the thread alone
[ May 18, 2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so unfriendly. I'll leave it alone with you.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
thanks for the im
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that.
Why must stating its existance and stopping be a requirement? Should homosexuality be forever stigmatized? Now maybe I am misreading and you are saying that they are promoting people choose a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. First, why do you think they would? Second, do you really think a person's sexual orientation is that fickle? Are we back to people saying its a choice?
Because it's already happened before, and I don't think teachers should be promoting any sort of sexual activity. I'm not talking about "Heather's Two Mommies" books, I mean teachers suggesting to children that they should experiment to discover their sexuality. Second, as I've posted here before I think sexuality is a continuum. Most are straight, a some are gay, a few are bi, a few are completely asexual. While I don't think homosexuality is always or even mostly a choice, I do think it can be for some and that for some impressionable people, trying it because it's the current fad might cause them more problems than it helps.
quote:There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance.
What do you mean by that? Them NOT HIDING their homosexuality is what you fear? I am confused here.
Ever see the Onion article "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Cause 50 Years"? Now is the time for homosexuals to demonstrate that they'll treat the institution of marriage with respect and dignity. I don't fear flaunting as much as I fear the inevitable backlash from people opposed to gay marriage who will just use it as ammunition. "See? They're just mocking us, we were right all along."
quote:There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own.
Ah, so you DO want the stigma to remain. What is wrong with kids expirementing with it? What are these "problems of its own"? These vague, nothing fears are EXACTLY whats so infuriating about the arguments against gay marriage. They use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. I repeat, what is wrong with them experimenting with their own sex? Isn't that SAFER than with the opposite sex (pregnancy)?
This wasn't worded well, I admit. I can see the increased acceptance of homosexuality used as an excuse for irresponsible or promiscuious sex that doesn't even carry the hazards of pregnancy. While I've got no problem with premarital sex I'm not fond of sex without commitment.
quote:And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
Explain how. Really. I'd like to hear this. In reality, the only people who would think it hurts marriage are the very religious. Hmmm, seems like these people would hold religion very dear no matter who gets to do it. Is that the fear? That a religious person would otherwise think that marriage is sacred, but that if they let gays get it, then gosh darn I guess that means its not sacred anymore. Free sex for all!
Marriage is already suffering from a lack of dedication. No-fault divorces, quickie marriages, leaving your spouse because "the spark is gone"... marriage simply isn't taken as seriously as it should be. One of the reasons I admire the gay marriage advocates is that they treasure the institution so highly they're willing to submit to public humiliation to fight for it. But one of the big arguments -- which I disagree with -- is that "letting gays in" will take away the specialness of marriage. I'm not saying that it will, but I am saying that enough people think so that I can see more straight people disdaining it. Why should they get married when it obviously doesn't mean anything anymore?
I do think that letting gays marry will ultimately strengthen society. I fear the reactions of the many people who disagree, and what they will do. This change, while a good one in my opinion, may cause too much upheaval for our society to bounce back from. I hope it won't, but it's foolish to assume that the acceptance of gay marriage won't have negative impacts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me, marriage is about consensual, lifelong, romantic love: the union of spirits in a committed partnership. That's its essence, the core of its meaning, and the meaning that ANYONE you ask will say modern marriage is intended to have. Everything else is a rider.
Tom, this statement is exactly why people are worried about gay marriage fundamentally altering the definition of marriage (the sanctity of marriage, if you will). Because to a huge number of people in this country, "everything else" is not just a rider - it's an essential part of the definition. Even leaving out the purely religious aspects of the traditional purposes of marriage leaves more than "consensual, lifelong, romantic love" at the core.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Even leaving out the purely religious aspects of the traditional purposes of marriage leaves more than 'consensual, lifelong, romantic love' at the core."
It doesn't leave anything important. There are a few legalistic quibbles, of course, but nothing else that's remotely relevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not trying to convince you - I'm trying to make you understand that THIS is the divide that needs to be crossed to get well-intentioned opponents of gay marriage to support it. They flat out disagree with your assessment of what's important (and hence defining) in marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, I know. Which is why I'm trying to explain to them that they're quite irreconcilably WRONG. Because even if I can't convince them that they ARE, at least they might eventually understand that not EVERYONE accepts their definition and consequently should not be beholden to it.
As I've said before, MY definition of marriage is the one that's universally recognizable; if you take the love out but put the "man and woman" bit IN, it just looks like one of those radio talk show team-ups. Clearly, by any standard, lifelong love between peers is the core of marriage; any union possessing these characteristics is likely to be recognized as something similar. Equally clearly, marriage does not require the sanction of God; we recognize hundreds of civil marriages each year. So does marriage require a single man and woman? There's no compelling reason for it to do so -- and, in fact, historical precedent to the contrary.
I continue to assert that consensual lifelong dedication, made possible through love, is the essence of marriage. I can't think of any other definition that applies as universally and recognizably to the modern form of the tradition.
[ May 18, 2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I happen to agree with their definition much more than yours. The successful strategy will be to demonstrate that the definition of civil marriage doesn't contain ANY defintion. After all, the definition of legal marriage doesn't rely on your definition in any way except that romantic love is a good way to achieve mutual consent.
You'll find it much harder to get people to accept a fairly radical change in the definition of the central institution in their lives than to accept that the definition bears no relation to the justifications for legal marriage.
Dagonee Edit: You added after I started drafting.
You can't argue historical precedent and the modern definition at the same time.
Further, there are many, many, many, many people who do not consider love (in the sense understood by most people) to be the most important element of marriage. There are people who don't consider it necessary at all. So your claim of universality smacks of hubris, which is what really gets people riled up. It's interpreted as, "Well, you're old-fashioned notions are plain wrong. The universal principle of marriage is "consensual lifelong dedication," not XXXXX (whatever you thought it was). If you disagree you must not be part of this society, because this definition is universal."
[ May 18, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, I won't argue with you about civil marriage; as implemented, it creates an interesting legal precedent that pretty much invalidates the rationale behind religious restrictions on marriage altogether.
If you'll recall, I'm the guy who's suggested opening up legal partnerships to ANY combination of consenting adults -- multiple partners of multiple sexes, relatives, etc. -- and leaving the "marriage" label as an ornamental, legally unrecognized cherry on top that can be bestowed by anyone who feels fit, including churches.
It's odd for me to find myself on the extreme libertarian end of the spectrum, but I don't see why the state has any compelling interest in "marriage" at all.
quote: If you disagree you must not be part of this society, because this definition is universal.
Do you agree, then, that people who make this argument are being silly and full of hubris and should be completely ignored? Because that's kind of my point.
[ May 18, 2004, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you agree, then, that people who make this argument are being silly and full of hubris and should be completely ignored? Because that's kind of my point.
If all you want is to score debating points, then yes, that seems like an acceptable reaction, although I wouldn't use the word silly. However, considering that a) the status quo IS based on centuries of tradition and b) the legal presumption currently rests with opponents of gay marriage, I'd think it would be more productive to acknowledge their traditions, but state that legally we are more concerned with a finite set of legal issues that are related to the traditional notion of marriage only incidentally.
As to the idea of "legal partnerships to ANY combination of consenting adults," I'm not opposed to it philosophically, but much of the legal convenience of marriage stems from its two-party nature. Multi-party contracts (ones that don't simply divide the parties into two classes) grow more complex rapidly, since each addition of a single party causes the number of relationships to multiply. This means poly marriage can be given the same convenience only by instituting inequality within it. And since I've decided civil marriage is mostly a legal convenience, I don't think it's a good change.
Plus, such parterships can already be made legally. Ask homosexuals why they're a poor substitute for marriage.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, change your argument from "consensual life-long commitment is the hear of marriage" to "consensual life-long commitment is the minimum ingrediant for administering and implementing the civil institution that happens to be called marriage."
[ May 18, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Yes, let us squabble let us babble let us ponder over circles and squares: the spilling of mental blood in the War on Terror-able definitions
Meanwhile 2,000+ people to whom this issue REALLY MATTERS Are on their honeymoons right now Emailing wedding pictures to extended family Celebrating Life and Love and Commitment (they call it marriage as if they OWNED the term)
"Activist Judges" are to blame, of course "Ammendment!", they cry, "our only recourse!" While we pause to remember 9 justices in '54 And the justice they forced upon us evermore
I am saddened most in the midst of this fray By this thought that hits me hard today: I can't invite you to my wedding 'Cause you have to try and change the heading And even though I'd like you there You still don't think it's fair to share A word A name And the blessings of life lived not alone.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: You are yelling that cucumbers are fruit, when 99% percent of the people in history would have argued that they weren't.
I hate to tell you this, but cucumbers actually are fruit.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
really? Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Heres a rule that works mack.
If it has seeds, its a fruit.
Enough said.
Cucumbers and tomatos both have seeds, so their fruitness is undeniable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If th epart you're eating has got seeds in it, it's likely a fruit. Legumes (pea-pods, etc.) are exceptions to that, I believe.
Dagonee *Forever doomed to be the late poster by my maddening need for detail.
[ May 18, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah. Pretty much anything with seeds in it is technically a fruit -- cucumber, tomato, okra, etc.. Roots, stems, and leaves are vegetables -- broccoli, carrots, radishes, lettuce, spinach, etc..
edit: what they said.
[ May 18, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know I think she's right. They have seeds inside of them. Tomatoes are fruiting bodies too. Technically fruits are the part of the plant used for reproduction...
AJ
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
Oh, that's interesting. So that's why tomatoes are fruit.
I don't understand why people care if homosexuals get married. There are a lot of things some people don't agree with that other people can still do legally, I don't understand why the principle of this particular thing is so threatening to people who think it's wrong.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, thank Eru we settled one issue.
We can, at least, all agree that cucumbers are a fruit, right?
Right?
*hopes she's right*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hey, Lara, we had successfully changed the subject, thank you very much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't understand why people care if homosexuals get married.
And that's why this issue will remain divisive. Until people understand the other position, they can't refute it. (Not to single you out - it's just a nice summary of what I see as the major issue.)
Dagonee
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
But anyway, cucumbers are definitely fruit.
(edit: to change potentially controversial tomatoes to cucumbers)
[ May 18, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Lara ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fruit == plant ovaries
That's the real definition, which is why strawberries are not fruit. The fruit is what we think of as the seeds on the outside of the strawberry. The actual seeds are inside those "seeds".
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
People are calling cucumbers fruit now? That threatens my entire sense of security and self-worth. If people are willing to call cucumbers fruit, what will they call fruit next? Tomatoes?!?
We're talking about the destruction of the FAMILY here, PEOPLE! The END of SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!!!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Case in point.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Straw berries aren't fruit?
I think it makes good sense to have legal gay marriages. I think in the end it will strenghten marriage and society. If we want to prevent the erosion of marriage, we need to toughen divorce laws.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I don't understand why you can't just let people who think it's fruit call it fruit. Oh, because then the textbook writers will have to decide what to call it, and the grocery stores will have to reshelve it maybe.. but you know, you can teach your kids- kids, these are vegetables. Even if your friends think they're fruit. Kind of like you have to do with anything else in this increasingly diverse world you have sincere reasons for disapproving.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I'm a firm believer that anything that tastes like crap isn't fruit.
Thus, tomatoes and grape...um...grapevegetables are both vegetables.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:If we want to prevent the erosion of marriage, we need to toughen divorce laws.
Another thing most people can agree on.
Or, is there anyone who thinks no-fault divorces are a good thing? Especially now that we have long term studies that show how damaging divorce is to children even after they've reached adulthood?
I certainly don't think divorce should be impossible, but I would like to see it restricted to the three A's - abuse, adultery, abandonment.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Touche, Dag.
But the case-in-point here should be telling us the exact opposite of your conclusion. Consider that it was PSI who brought the Cucumber into the debate in the first place, and, regardless of whether or not he/she labeled it appropriately as fruit/vegetable, it was a conceit meant to illustrate one thing:
The opposition's perspective on homosexual equality is that I, in my pursuit of happiness, am demanding that everyone else turn their understanding of the world upside-down in order to meet my personal desires.
That is simply not the case, as much as the blood-letting would lead you to believe. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the opposition to gay marriage to perform, take part in, or otherwise support gay marriage.
The issue remains contentious, not because the opposition isn't fully understood or appreciated, but because the opposition DOES NOT HAVE ANY REAL REASONS TO DENY ME EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW beyond how offended they are that I am not like them and yet demand to be treated with the same respect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John,
I think I finally figured out what my problem is with the outright dismissal of the label argument: Take a law that says: "A union between two consenting adults of the same sex shall be called XXXXXX; members of an XXXXXX shall be called yyyyyy. XXXXXXs shall carry all the civil and legal rights and responsibilities as marriages. Any place in the law where the word marriage is used, marriage or XXXXX shall be substituted. Anyplace in the law where spouse, husband, or wife is used, spuse and yyyyyy will be subsituted."
Mos gay marriage advocates I've discussed this with would not accept this a preferred solution. Hell, it's not my preferred solution. My solutions in order of preference are 1.) replace all reference to marriage with civil union and allow them to any two consenting adults not already in a civil union, 2.) allow civil homosexual marriage, 3.) the solution I outlined above, and 4.) Vermont-style civil unions. All solutions assume a full faith and credit right for use in other states. 3 and 4 don't solve the inequality problem fully, and I have a problem with solving such things half way, but if we can't get anything else it would be a huge start.
However, if solution 3 isn't acceptable, then it must be admitted that labels matter. And if labels matter, then lets have the discussion needed to get a majority of Americans to accept the redefinition that has happened by fiat over the last 50 years and really implement the new labels or definitions.
And John, I'm not arguing the central equality issue at all. I'm trying to bridge the gap between the two sides by increasing understanding. I have a much better understanding of what's needed to change the minds of the well-intentioned opponents than most on our side of this issue. I'm trying to share that to help people change hearts and minds.
I'm also trying to stop some of the unthinking ridicule, which I've never seen from you. It's why I'll post long replies on the subject to people like you or Tom.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag, I can appreciate the angle you're working here. Really, I can.
And I know you aren't trying to argue equality, but here's the reason I put it in such stark terms:
Since there are no legitimate reasons to differentiate between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions in the eyes of the state, there is absolutely nothing upon which gay marriage advocates have to compromise. In fact the only argument that the opposition is finally relegated to is this silly name game. You hit the nail on the head in asking whether or not these labels matter. I would suggest that you take a step further and ask "to WHOM do these labels matter?" and "WHY do these labels matter to them?" and then judge those answers on their MERIT rather than assigning undue importance to the perspective (from a legal standpoint) based on the numbers of people who have it.
[ May 18, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Cucumbers and tomatoes ruin the sanctity of marraige. Gay people don't. Either way, fruits will be fruits. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, I see this as the final act of the excision of everything non-legal from the civil institution of marriage. I firmly believe that most opposition not actually based on hatred of homosexuals is based on the unwillingness to perform this excision - it's seen as a surrender in a culture war that encompasses far more than homosexuality. The labels matter to those who don't like the relatively new concept that government institutions should not reflect the underlying cultural mores.
From a legal perspective, this will be much better if it's enacted by legislatures. So changing voters minds is critical to the effort. What if the third option from my previous post commanded majority support? Would you prefer it be enacted by normal legislative processes? Or would you prefer that solution 1 or 2, that differ only in the fact that the labels are the same, be imposed on the electorate? Basically, I'm wondering how important the label is to you.
And John, I do understand your discomfort with this idea. You're being denied equality under the law and some guy who can get married whenever he wants is asking that you work to understand those opposing your equality. It's a tall order, and it's most definitely not fair. But I think the process has to happen for this change to take place. The best way to combat fear is to show that it is baseless.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
"From a legal perspective, this will be much better if it's enacted by legislatures."
Why? Who benefits from the idea that homosexual rights be must first be recognized by the electorate before they become protected? Why should I and 20 million other Americans be forced into a position of having to earn the respect of the American people in order to be equal with them(us, really)? For that matter, why would we want to force our lawmakers to enter into yet another political morality quagmire? Already Americans vote "pro-life" or "pro-choice" and politicians' careers are often made or broken soley on their positions with this one issue, regardless of how unimportant it is to the business of running a democracy.
I shudder to think of fillibusters around the country, from both sides of the table, both claiming moral superiority, all the while holding my rights (or the DEFINITION of my rights, whatever that means) in some kind of limbo where it's been decided that I should get *something*, just not exactly what everyone else has. Even if the difference is just in the name.
Well I say cut out the bullshit. I don't particularly feel like having my status as a citizen be some kind of novelty prize in a culture war. There's a reason the courts have historically been there to step up to the plate in issues like interracial marriage and school segregation.
...and i have many other thoughts to share (try not to read vitriol into my tone if I sound aggravated, because I am ALWAYS agravated about this) but I have to catch a bus home now that work is done. Gotta do my part to cut back on our oil dependence, after all.
[ May 18, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Gosh, I think the world feels a little gayer today, don't you?
It's like gayness is just oozing from the East and taking over.
We might as well give up now. We'll all be gay in a week or so anyway. Might as well just not fight it.
Shucks! And I was really looking forward to marrying Dana. This ruins EVERYTHING!
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
If one of my children ends up being gay or lesbian, I'd hope there were some loving, committed same-sex husbands or wives in my neighborhood so my child had a real life example (as well as two role models and people to look up to) of what love of any kind can do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's funny you brought up pro-life and pro-choice. If you want to know why people are suspicious of judicial legislation, it's because some old men sanctioned the legal murder of over a million people a year.
F&^% it. I'm done trying to build bridges. If I have a litmus test issue, it's abortion, not this.
Dagonee
Posted by goblin (Member # 6539) on :
I have a solution to the whole debate over same sex marriage. Why don't we just do away with the institute of marriage all together. we can all form civil unions that will allow everyone the same rights as everyone else, and should therefore make every one happy. That is what this is all about, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, I've been advocating that for months now. I'm all for it.
Dagonee
Posted by goblin (Member # 6539) on :
Thought I was the only one. Glad to hear that someone else has the ability to think this out rationally.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
The problem is that marriage is virtually unique in that it has incredible religious significance. I'm all for civil unions, but not at the detriment of marriage.
Posted by goblin (Member # 6539) on :
but when we start trying to use the institute of marriage to reach our own goals, and therfore attempt to make oters less than us in the eyes of God, it that not a detriment to us all?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Damien, I made that pun-ish thing way back on the last page.
Posted by Steel (Member # 3342) on :
quote:Same Sex Couples Marry in Massachusetts
Try saying THAT five times fast.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag, there's no need to get angry.
I didn't bring up pro-life vs. pro-choice as an expample of judges doing their rightful duty enforcing equality. While I may or may not agree with that, I rose THAT issue as an example of a political morality stalemate/quagmire--which I could do with guns, prayer in school, or whatever. I find it hard to believe that you'd see the Judicial branch enforcing equality for homosexuals upon the electorate--at no other cost than a little bitterness over labels--to be as morally repugnant as what you believe to be the whosesale endorsement of murdering millions of innocent children.
Your feelings about Roe vs. Wade are inadequate justification to oppose a Judicial settlement of this wholely separate issue, which as you know is far more similar to Brown vs. the Board of Education--another example of "activist judging" that was thought by many to be a usurpation of Legislative jurisdiction.
Again I ask, who stands to benefit from leaving my rights unprotected until they have been recognized by the electorate? In whose interest is it to have lawmakers, who could be figuring out how to pay for our prisons and not fire any more teachers all while trying not to raise taxes since a third of them at any given time are busy running for reelection, WHY would we want our politicians to have yet another issue of this polarity keeping them from serious stuff that we need them to be doing?
And I know it's a tall order, but... why should I have to wait? See, you're right. The label really doesn't mean anything to me. It might mean a lot to some of us. I'm not going to do a survey to find out. But I know injustice when I see it, and frankly I find its immediate resolution to be a far higher priority than letting everyone have their say on what the meaning of "is" is. I can empathize with the conservative who fears the State is starting to function more like the public library and less like your local First Baptist, but I guess I just don't see much injustice in that.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Goat,
My faux pas. You are correct. Please forgive me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
John, it seems to me that if we weaken deomocracy by having the judicial system legislate, then we are weakening everybody's rights. It can be argued that we are creating a branch of the government that doesn't have the proper checks and balances.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, I wasn’t going to respond, but you deserve an answer. The problem with a judicial settlement to this is that it won't last. Even Mass. is likely to overrule the decision via amendment. The only way to secure a long-term solution to the problem is to change people’s minds.
There’s a further problem. The case for justice here is, at least in my mind, clear. The case for a constitutional ruling (federal) is not. There are well-established principles of equal protection adjudication that just will not support mandating gay marriage under the equal protection clause. I discussed them in a lengthy post above.
Our history is replete with courts restricting rights in the name of upholding them. Dred Scott is the most famous case, and the most egregious. The second part of the decision was based on the 5th amendment due process clause protecting property. Roe is the second most egregious, using the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deprive an entire class of people the right to protection by the legislature.
The same clause was used by the Court in this century to strike down a host of social reform bills: Child labor laws, minimum wage laws, maximum hour laws, and a host of others. These were all held to be violations of the right to freely contract for labor. What these cases all have in common, along with Roe and Scott, is that the judiciary stripped people of protection granted to them by either state or federal legislatures. The judicial power, if unfettered, is enormously dangerous.
The traditional fetter on this power is self-restraint brought on by issues of justiciability, precedent, textual analysis, structural analysis, and originalism. Scott and Roe had something else in common – they were based on tortured constitutional reasoning. Neither had any basis in constitutional precedent that supported their holdings.
Now, were the court to rule that denial of marriage to gay couples violated the equal protection clause, it would have to invent new doctrine to do so. This doctrine would either be a modification to the existing equal protection analysis, or a reinterpretation of the purpose of marriage law. The latter is why I favor equal homosexual civil marriage rights. But the court is not the entity that should perform that reinterpretation.
The key is an acceptance that not every injustice can be undone by the courts. No one would welcome this kind of government, because every decision made by government results in some people gaining and some people losing. We could even end up with Courts making tax policy because some tax preferences favor some people over others. For all those who think this is a great idea, ask yourself how much you’d like it if Scalia or Breyer (depending on your political preferences) was deciding who should pay what taxes, with the knowledge that they will never be subject to the electorate.
Who benefits from not having the court decide this issue? Everyone who desires to preserve the power of the courts and the principles of representational government. The argument that this issue should be removed from the legislature’s hands because it is contentious is spurious – for better or for worse our country is governed by the politically accountable branches.
By reducing the discussion to “mere labels,” the entire aspect of the debate related to the purpose of marriage in society is bypassed. This debate is important, and deserves to be addressed fully. I’ve tried to describe this before, so I won’t go into great depth again, but this is not about “a little bitterness over labels.” It’s about the difference in underlying philosophies, one of which says civil marriage is a collection of legal rights and benefits and nothing more, and one which says civil marriage is the foundational institution upon which society grows and survives.
I know all the arguments you and Tom and Dan have made about this, and as you know, I largely agree with them as they are applied to civil marriage. My opinion is that “marriage” as an institution requires some minimum set of legal principles, and that if those are provided, the institution can survive on its own. Therefore, it makes no difference if others receive the benefits of those legal principles, as long as their receipt does not endanger the underlying principles. And extending those principles to homosexual couples does not endanger them. Incidentally, this is why I don’t buy into the homosexual marriage leads to polygamy arguments – altering marriage rules to account for multiple spouses would endanger the underlying legal principles, because they would have to be drastically altered to account for multiple spouses.
However, there is a large number of people who feel that marriage as the foundational institution requires a separate identity and special help from the government, and that such special help is justified by the biological role of heterosexual marriage that is not present in homosexual marriage. Again, I know the responses to these arguments and largely agree with them. But the fact is that at the most basic level, every non-reproductive marriage could dissolve with a much lower impact on society than the dissolution of reproductive marriages. (Please, don’t interpret this as my saying that this means non-reproductive marriages have less inherent worth or dignity – I’m speaking solely of societal impact that justifies some legal preference.) Of course, I believe the disparity in societal impact does NOT justify the disparity in access to civil marriage. I’m seeking recognition that this goes beyond labels.
John, again, I understand your frustration. If I could wave my hand and implement nationwide gay marriage, I would. But I fear the erosion of political rights attached to such a decision. In some cases, court intervention is necessary and appropriate. This is one of the hard cases where it may be necessary but not appropriate.
And that is why I have been trying like hell to get people on my side of the issue to understand the objections of opponents, and not write them off as religious cranks, homophobes, and people worried about calling a cucumber a fruit (or a vegetable).
Dagonee
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
That makes sense, Dagonee. I should have read your posts more carefully earlier, it's too easy to dumb down this issue.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: John, it seems to me that if we weaken deomocracy by having the judicial system legislate, then we are weakening everybody's rights.
But they're not legislating. They're saying that certain laws are unconstitutional. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to say something was unconstitutional. Might as well let Congress pass whatever they want and not let the Supreme Court defend the constitution, eh? Because if we did they'd just be legislating.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not what I said at all, R3. Edit: That is, not what the countermajoritarian argument is really about.
[ May 19, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Damien,
I forgive you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But they're not legislating. They're saying that certain laws are unconstitutional. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to say something was unconstitutional.
Yes they are. The court has an ever-increasing habit of *calling* things unconstitutional, even though they aren't against the written constitution.
Roe vs. Wade is a good example. Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the rationalle Roe vs. Wade is that anti-abortion laws limit our constitutional right to privacy. But the problem is that there is no such right in the constitution. Maybe it *should* be there, but it ain't.
That's what I mean by the Supreme Court legislating.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why do I have to keep bringing this up?
Whatever you think the limits are, there is an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution:
quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Do people just not read this thing and start asserting whatever about it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, explain how that privacy right is at all related to abortion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Good question. I'm not answering it, yet at least. I was just responding to the ridiculous assertion there was no privacy right in the constitution.
Actually, I'll point out that the particular wording of the privacy right may make it particularly applicable to abortion -- is it ever reasonably the state's business that a person is pregnant? If one does not take the person-hood of a fetus as a given, which the law never has.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Fugu, that strikes me as a right not to have property taken away rather than a privacy right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You forgot the "search" part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The 4th amendment was written in response to very particular actions taken by the British in the colonies. The first part states that searches and seizures will be reasonable (without defining that). The second part was aimed at preventing general warrants that gave officials the right to search anyone, anyplace, anytime.
It has never been interpreted to mean the government cannot criminalize a particular action. It means the government can't force women to submit to pregnancy tests without probable cause of a crime, not that it can't prohibit a doctor from performing a specific action.
Dagonee Edit: As for the search part, it prohibits a particular government action in particular situations. And the only practical remedy for violations is exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from use in a criminal trial against the person's rights that were violated.
[ May 19, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not saying that its necessarily particularly meaningful, just that its definitely a right to privacy of some sort -- what else is protection from unreasonable searches?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
People also have a tendency to forget the ninth amendment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't forgotten it, I'm just wondering if anyone really wants "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" to be judicially interpreted. Sounds very scary to me, especially when you consider that upholding a right for one person often means striking down a related right for someone else.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dag is right. This amendment aginast unreasonable search and seizure just doesn't apply to abortion or the Supreme Court's recent anti-anti-sodomy law ruling.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that I prefer to trust the judgement of the Supreme Court, particularly in the latter case.
edit: and they didn't say that the search and seizure amendment applied either.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, what you are saying is that you prefer to trust nine people appointed for life with such decisions.
Even though I agree with one of those decisions, the wholesale creation of rights is worrisome.
Again, especially when the right in question can effectively eliminate another right for another person.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I tend to generally trust nine of the greatest legal minds in the country.
And I must assume you're referring to the rights of the impregnating male, as the fetus has never been considered a person legally.
edit to make the implicit explicit: and aren't you advocating a great expansion of rights to those fetuses which would, at least by the reasoning of the supreme court, be greatly infringing the rights of the women involved? IOW, even if you're right, you're right in a very similar way to how the court could be right.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So I disagree with the Supreme Court. I make no apologies for that.
The Court has disagreed with itself many times, so they cannot always be right.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course they're not always right. And what is right can change, as the laws and their applications change. But when its a question of more likely to be right, I know who I'm betting on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:edit to make the implicit explicit: and aren't you advocating a great expansion of rights to those fetuses which would, at least by the reasoning of the supreme court, be greatly infringing the rights of the women involved? IOW, even if you're right, you're right in a very similar way to how the court could be right.
And shouldn't such decisions be made by the branches of government accountable to the people, to the extent it's possible?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No.
The judicial system is partly in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The rule of the majority was preventing women from having abortions, which in this case was leading to many deaths and mutilations from "home abortions". There was and is no recognized legal standing for the fetus, and the participation of the husband in the decision was arguably less important than ensuring women would not recourse to doing it themselves. Note that this last point has likely changed, because the decision making role of women in society has greatly expanded since.
As such, the ruling of the Supreme Court was, at least then, acceptable to me, if perhaps not under their reasoning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, can you give me a decision that shouldn't be made by the courts then?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I suppose there's some obvious reason that I'm missing, but why is it necessary to first assume that a certain group has no legal protection, as opposed to presuming all people are included? IE, fetuses, blacks, women, etc., are all included generally under "people" or "citizens" rather than having to each be specified...It'd have saved us a lot of amendments.
[ May 20, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For the same reason we don't assume tumors are people, or skin cells are people -- it won't be long before any given skin cell has just as much potential to be human as a fetus that requires medical care to survive -- either one, properly treated, would grow up to be a human. Also, fetuses are not clearly human-like, unlike every other group you name. Not to mention, fetuses are regularly lost partially due to the actions of a mother, for instance, miscarriage -- should every woman who has a miscarriage after strenuous physical activity or similar be prosecuted for criminal negligence? If we afford a fetus full rights as a human, that sort of thing must happen.
No, a fetus is not a person. It may be some other legally protected entity, but at least under our legal tradition it has no inherent protection.
Under our legal tradition, where the fetus is not a person and the woman is, it is definitely acceptable for the supreme court to rule that 1) the fetus is a part of the woman's body and 2) a woman has the right to do what she wills with her body provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Note that I don't necessarily think the court is particularly consistent in their reasoning -- it would be acceptable for laws to prevent transactions involving many drugs, under this reasonsing, but not the consumption. Of course, that drugs are external to the body weakens the reasoning, so some overriding concern could apply.
None of the laws protecting fetuses at that time gave them inherent legal protection (that I've ever heard of), they were just laws preventing women from doing something with their own bodies.
Now, were there to be a law not forbidding abortion, but giving the fetus a separate legal status which prevented it from being aborted, that would possibly be a way for the legislature to overturn the effect of the ruling. However, it may be necessary to have a Constitutional amendment to create such a status securely.
Of course there are things the courts can't decide. They can't decide anything they are not legally empowered to decide. In this case, perhaps it would have been better for the courts not to make that ruling (at least not to the same degree), but did they not have the power to? I think they did have the power to.
Ultimately, its going to be nine people appointed for life sitting in their offices making weighty decisions about the law. And yes, they're going to be wrong sometimes. But I don't see a good alternative, not at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu,
What I don't see in your philosophy is the set of criteria for deciding which issues should be decided by the courts and which shouldn't. Almost every decision made by goverment can be couched in terms of rights-infrigement. So which types of decisions shouldn't be made by the courts?
And to be clear, I'm not against judicial review. I'm in favor of making sure it doesn't overwhelm the political power of the people.
Dagonee
[ May 20, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The supreme court is only supposed to prevent the tyranny of the majority when that majority decision violates the constitution. If they just think the majority is *wrong* (as with your abortion case), then we have traded tyranny of majority to the tyranny of a few judges, which is even worse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While its useful to have such a principle, its also important to understand that the only ones who can safely determine that principle are the SC themselves, or the populace through a Constitutional amendment. And its not really feasible to create an acid test, due to the incredible scope of possible convolutions.
As such, while it may be worthwhile to debate if a very particular ruling overstepped the court's bounds, it is only effective to do so if one can make a strong argument that it passes beyond authority they have previously assumed. And even then, the nature of a changing legal landscape is that its borders may change as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While its useful to have such a principle, its also important to understand that the only ones who can safely determine that principle are the SC themselves, or the populace through a Constitutional amendment. And its not really feasible to create an acid test, due to the incredible scope of possible convolutions.
But it behooves anyone who participates in this political process to a) have a set of such principles, b) monitor the court's compliance with those principles, and c) decide when a constitutional amendment might be necessary.
And the principles by which the Court decides to intervene are not, not should they be, inarticulable. We don't have a government based on what somebody feels like doing today.
Dagonee
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Hmmm I've been forgiven. Now, if only I could find a boyfriend. >_>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the only ones who can safely determine that principle are the SC themselves, or the populace through a Constitutional amendment.
The fact that anybody would say this to me is proof that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds beyond the checks and balances that the constitution established. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, note the qualification afterwards.
Second, were the legislature empowered to restrict the court arbitrarily, the court would almost wholly subordinate to the legislature. That must not be.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I'd like to point out, since the discussion seems to be a lot of argument about the supreme court, that it's not based on the original documents anymore. Political scientists will tell you that.
The United States is based off of a British common-law structure where laws are broad and hard to interpret, and therefore don't need to be rewritten very often. This is in opposition to the Nepoleonic code law system where the government uses law as a tool for governance. Typically code law legislation is much more specific and cannot be reinterpreted as it is often done in common law systems.
The result is that supreme court rulings create precedents that subsequent cases are then based off of. When there is no precedent, the members of the SC return to the original documents and develop interpretations of the text.
So "unlawful search and siesure" became "right to privacy" at some point (I don't personally know when), and has been such ever since. At the same time "right to bear arms" has become "right to have any weapon the military wouldn't use in war" (to simplify). These instances don't reflect the original meaning of the constitution, but an interpreted one out of tradition.
Whether or not any of you think this applies *now* is another story.
As for same-sex marriages, it's not the end of the world, guys. Lighten up. On a legal level, it makes homosexual couples better-able to look after one another. In Vermont (my home state w00t), civil unions were the worst thing ever, according to some Vermonters. If you've ever seen a "Take Back Vermont" sign, those aren't advertisements for Vermont commemorative duck decoys, they're part of a failed anti-Civil Unions activist campaign. It turns out, Vermont was not consumed with crazy gay people (which were just teeming outside our borders... really!), and Vermont really didn't change all that much.
Maybe because I'm wholly unreligious, but I really don't understand how calling a Civil Union a Marriage (or vice versa) makes any difference. They're quantitatively the same.
PSI beleives that marriage is for a man and a woman, but it seems to be an unimportant distinction, at least legally. Religiously or subjectively, yes, it does make a difference. But legally if right x and right y are granted to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, why shouldn't the package for both be called the same. I call my Linux-packing computer a computer, and I call my Windows-running computer a computer, and I call my friend's iBook a computer. They're all different, but not quantitatively enough for one not to be a computer.
Just my take, anyway.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
wheat,
quote:but I really don't understand how calling a Civil Union a Marriage (or vice versa) makes any difference.
but it does make a difference. human beings think in symbolic terms. a label is a symbol. equating symbols (labels) is both a form of externally validated acceptance to one community and an affront to externally validated specialness to another.
true. symbolic thinking has it's limitations and history shows this to be a rather deep tragedy of the human condition.
fallow
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: were the legislature empowered to restrict the court arbitrarily, the court would almost wholly subordinate to the legislature. That must not be.
Right now, the Supreme Court has the power to restrict the legislature arbitrarily. This must not be either.
If the legislature passes a law that the court doesn't like, they just call it unconstitutional, whether it is or not.
Unfortunately, I cannot think of a structure that would a) prevent this abuse and b) not completely emasculate the court.
The only solution I can think of is if the judges *choose* to not grab more power than they should. But of course, if we could trust people in power to do what's right, any government would work just fine.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
monsieur du pomme de tete,
quote: If the legislature passes a law that the court doesn't like, they just call it unconstitutional, whether it is or not.
that smacks of an over-simplification.
fallow
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:If the legislature passes a law that the court doesn't like, they just call it unconstitutional, whether it is or not.
Yeah, do you have some examples of this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We've been talking about several examples. Roe vs. Wade is one that was mentioned in this thread. Brown vs. Board of Education is another one mentioned in the Victory for Romanticism thread.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
monsieur,
several examples don't constitute a "trend" or phenomena (-> driving toward a simplification), particularly when the several examples go this way and that across the political spectrum.
fallow
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: We've been talking about several examples. Roe vs. Wade is one that was mentioned in this thread. Brown vs. Board of Education is another one mentioned in the Victory for Romanticism thread.
You think that the court shouldn't have integrated the schools? You're kidding, right?
edit: bad grammar
[ May 21, 2004, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
RRR,
calculatin's for the high and mighty calcululii. integration is the unpleasant (and malodorous, if I might add) necessity of that proof.
fallow
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
fallow,
cute. ...i think.
RRR
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I try! Thanks for noticing.
fallow
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
WheatPuppet,
I'm not sure anyone here has argued for pure originalism. And the 4th amendment right to privacy is unrelated to the the right to privacy used as a basis in Roe.
Originalism, textualism, structuralism, representational reinforcement, and core value analysis are just some of the many methods used to evaluate the Constitution.
All I've been advocating is that the Supreme Court must have some limits in the extent of its overruling of legislation. An no constitutional theory disagrees with this.
The argument has always been where the limit should be.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
mph, there IS a check on the judicial branch... The executive and legislative can ignore the decision. The judicial branch has no means to enforce its rulings. So if it gets too "out there", people will treat it with irrelevancy.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is another reason for the Court to limit areas it intercedes as much as possible: each use of judicial review costs the court a little bit of "juice." It needs to make sure it maintains enough to have credibility when it makes a ruling like Brown.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, the important part has been pointed out. The court is checked by their lack of control. Stuff they say to happen only happens if the legislative and executive parts of government go along. They've been ignored before, including when they were right (Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears, anyone?).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I'm not saying nobody else should come up with definitions on limits, or that it shouldn't be articulated. I'm saying there shouldn't be 1) an acid test, which is probably what would result from a legislative curb, if such a thing were attempted and 2) that the only people who can define such limits in any manner that preserve's the court's ability to curb the legislative and executive branches at all are either the people as a whole in a Constitutional amendment, or the court itself.
Now, I'd be interesting in hearing Dag's discourse on this snippet:
quote: In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Particularly regarding the bit about exceptions and regulations.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: You think that the court shouldn't have integrated the schools? You're kidding, right?
I never said what they did was *wrong*. I just said that it's constitutional foundation is pretty shaky.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fugu, what you are saying is starting to sink in. While I thought I disagreed with you in just about every post in this thread, that last post of yours makes a lot of sense to me. Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
Dag: that doesnt make sense- everytime the court makes a decision it loses credibility? The Supreme Court makes its decisions based on its interpretation of the constituion- the court knows the constitution better than anybody else, so lets leave it up to them. And the part about losing credibility--on what basis, that groups might disagree with the ruling? That is why the court is independent from the majority-because people are stupid, generally speaking. Now understand my meaning, opinions are not stupid, but some less backed by fact or reasonable information than others.
The Supreme court is never wrong per se, but interpretations change from time to time with the social order. The best example is the treatment of African Americans and the symbolic relevance to this discussion. BTW-MPH, there is no mention of seperate but equal in the constitution, but there is a lot of stuff about equality and freedom from oppresion by government--I would like to hear how the Brown v Board ruling has "Shaky" constitutional foundation.
It should be pretty simple- the constitution promotes equality for all and freedom from oppresion in any form. So why not grant marriage for gay couples?
BTW-fugu, love the explanation of the fetus rights
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Brown is thought by many to stand on "shaky" Constitutional ground, because under the 9th and 10th ammedment it is difficult to argue that the government could impose regulations upon our local school systems, since (especially at that time... I believe there wasn't even a Department of Education yet) the Constitution expressly grants the rights of regulation to the people and to the States.
Some call this 'legislating from the bench', and in a way they are correct. Of course, ALL BENCH DECISIONS ARE LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE so this cannot really be helped.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Adeimantus, go check out the other thread where I said Brown vs. Board of Education was discussed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:fugu13 said: Now, I'd be interesting in hearing Dag's discourse on this snippet: [quote omitted]
Particularly regarding the bit about exceptions and regulations.
I’ll have to get back to this – there’s some interesting case law on the subject.
That clause was the basis of the underlying decision in Marbury v. Madison, by the way.
quote:Adeimantus Dag: that doesnt make sense- everytime the court makes a decision it loses credibility? The Supreme Court makes its decisions based on its interpretation of the constituion- the court knows the constitution better than anybody else, so lets leave it up to them. And the part about losing credibility--on what basis, that groups might disagree with the ruling? That is why the court is independent from the majority-because people are stupid, generally speaking. Now understand my meaning, opinions are not stupid, but some less backed by fact or reasonable information than others.
I never said it each decision cost it credibility. I said each use of judicial review (not every decision), meaning declaring an act of another branch unconstitutional, cost it “juice,” which was a particular choice of words to connote some imprecise combination of reputation, credibility, perceived integrity, and willingness of the other branches to follow its decisions. This is not me saying this, this is a common factor cited in both supreme court decisions and constitutional scholarly work. I’ll look some up if I get a chance and post it.
quote:Adeimantus The Supreme court is never wrong per se, but interpretations change from time to time with the social order. The best example is the treatment of African Americans and the symbolic relevance to this discussion. BTW-MPH, there is no mention of seperate but equal in the constitution, but there is a lot of stuff about equality and freedom from oppresion by government--I would like to hear how the Brown v Board ruling has "Shaky" constitutional foundation.
Read my post above on the subject. Again, I don’t think the decision was wrong. The reasoning behind it was shaky, and stronger reasoning with better basis in precedent was not used, probably for political reasons.
It should be pretty simple- the constitution promotes equality for all and freedom from oppresion in any form. So why not grant marriage for gay couples?[/quote]
And the Constitution does NOT protect from oppression in any form. Hyperbole doesn’t advance discussions such as this one.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)