quote:I just wanted to be petty and point out your hypocrisy in telling me I shouldn't create a simplified potrayl of "the other side" on abortion, but then have you turn around and do the same thing to "the other side" on SSM.
At that time, I was trying -- politely -- to explain that your portrayal of the "other side" of the abortion argument was flawed and inaccurate, based upon my own experiences on that other side, and suggesting that you not do it. Since you were at the time presenting yourself as an even-handed authority on the motivations of both groups and were in fact trying to be helpful by demonstrating what you felt were possible points of consensus, I didn't just want to slap you down by saying, "Hey, you're pretty darn wrong about that." My argument there was never that people shouldn't speculate about motivation in general, but rather that you shouldn't speak for pro-choicers about their motivations.
If you still fail to understand the distinction between these two cases, please drop me an email and I'll elaborate. As it is, I don't see any hypocrisy here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I really hate it when smart people waste time on "meta-arguing".
I'd like to defend the "meta-arguing" (this would actually make this a meta-meta-arguing, but what can I do?)
I think it is no use to argue, if you don't agree on "the rules of arguing".
Should one cover his/hers ears with the hands, and keep repeating over and over an argument, never acknowledging other arguments? Should one attack "the other side" but get offended when he/she feels is attacked back?
You'll say "smart people" agree "by default" on matters like that. But what do you do when they don't?
[/meta-meta-arguing]
A.
[edited to add relevant quote]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MY solution? Get rid of marriage entirely as a legal institution, replaced by civil unions for all. If people want to get married in a church, let 'em -- and let the churches apply whatever standards they want to that completely ceremonial, um, ceremony. But then make them sign a little paper that makes their "marriage" also a "civil union."
Would there be any limitations, in your theoretical system, on who could enter into civil unions (e.g. close relatives, minors, mulitple partners, etc.)? I know this strays dangerously close to comparing homosexuals to donkeys, but I'm just wondering what your opinion is.
For the record I didn't see my reason for opposing gay marriage on your list. I oppose gay marriage because I believe "marriage" is a social construct and therefore derives it's power from the consent of the community. Since I, as a member of the community, don't recognize the validity of same-sex relationships, I support efforts to legislate against same-sex marriage. My reasons for not accepting the validity of same-sex relationships are largely religious, but my reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are purely civic.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would there be any limitations, in your theoretical system, on who could enter into civil unions (e.g. close relatives, minors, mulitple partners, etc.)?
I would restrict civil unions to consenting adults who are not immediately related, and only permit any one individual to belong to a single civil union at one time. I don't see a problem with multiple partners, although of course corporations may want to rethink their insurance policies at that point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
"I oppose same sex marriage" "Same Sex Marriage is a derived from the power of society" "I am a member of society" "I oppose same sex marriage" Therefore: "I oppose Same Sex Marriage"
Did I get it right?
If I did, your argument is circular.
And even if I didn't you didn't explain WHY you don't see SSM as valid.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My reasons for not accepting the validity of same-sex relationships are largely religious,
And anyway you got his argument wrong, it is :
- Marriage derives its power from the consent of others - I do not consent to SSM - Therefore an SSM has no power - Therefore it is useless and should not be legislated.
If I understood it correctly, anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so it's back to the religion, separation and church and state dead horse again...
Which means that the opposion is still rooted in religion and is in no way civic. The civic argument is simply draped over god as one more thing to hide behind.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically.
Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
Now don't attack me and say that I'm saying denying people equal rights is okay if there's an economic impact - not saying that. Just saying that regardless, there are potential problems that need to be looked at and solutions that would need to be found if society does indeed move toward the civil union for any two consenting adults.
And it would need to be defined, as proved by SenojRetep's question and Tom's response - apparently people do think there should be some limits on who can form civil unions. How do we define those limits and who gets to decide on them?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think KoM got closest to the logical progression of why I oppose SSM. And (Tom) I see it significantly differently than a #2 argument. Saying I don't consent to the relationship and so oppose legislation that would force me to has nothing to do with saying whether I desire to similarly influence society to believe as I do, which I think is the core of argument #2.
I think I'm very consistent in how I approach my civic obligations, and personally I think repeating the tired phrase "separation of church and state" has very little bearing on my argument (IMO). The bastardized understanding of religion's role in public life that we abide by today would, I think, astound the majority of the founding fathers.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
Correst me if I'm wrong but with the speed it's possible to marry in the USA, wouldn't that already be possible if your friend and you happen not to be the same sex?
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many of you are still missing the point.
Same Sex Marriage has nothing to do with 'Behavior'.
First and foremost, gay sex is legal, just as straight sex is legal. So, do you propose granting rights to one group engage in legal activity while you deny legal rights to another group also engaged in legal activity? I fail to see the sense in that.
Next, marriage isn't even remotely about behavior. In what way is it? Is marriage just a license to legally screw someone? Certainly not. It all completely about legal rights and responsibility. If you marry someone you take on legal responsibilities. You can't simply abandon this other person. It is also about legal rights. There are tax considerations, rights of inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, medical insurance, and a whole load of other rights that are being denied to people, who, if you must reduce it to behavior, are engage in legal behavior.
It doesn't matter if Donkeys want to marry rocks, donkey are not able to engage in or comprehend legal rights and responsibilities. It doesn't matter who you are having sex with, it's all about forming a legally binding family unit with all the associated right and responsibilities.
As far as Civil Unions, that's all any marriage is, a document on file at the court house legally establishing people as a legal family unit. Any religious component to marriage is strictly personal. Catholics are married in accordance and bound by the same standards of law as anyone else. When they get divorced, the same law apply to them as apply to everyone else. However, it is merely a Catholics personal beliefs that control how, when, and if they can get divorced in the eyes of the Church. That acceptance or prevention of divorce by the Church has no legal standing.
Whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, this is purely a legal and civil rights issue. Should two people living in nearly identical circumstances be granted the same rights and responsibilities as other people living under those same circumstances, and from a purely legal point of view, their is no justification for them to not be granted those rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Now you are certainly free to argue the morality of same sex couplings just as long as you remember that straight sex is also immoral (other than in one specific set of legally defined circumstances). Fornication is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Promiscuity is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Adultry is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Yet, are you advocating that we take away the legal rights of all these people because they engaged in immoral activity; I didn't think so. The Bible clearly says chapter after chapter verse after verse that Adulterer's should be put to death, so when you use the Bible to denounce homosexuality are you equally proposing that the next stop after divorce court should be the execution chamber, I didn't think so.
This is purely a matter of law and civil rights, which is all marriage is, a legal and civil convention by which we grant rights and demand responsibilities. Morality doesn't come into play.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I don't remember whether it was real or just proposed, probably the latter. I read somewhere about a society that did let friends form civil unions. Apparently these are the very close friends that are only lacking the romantic aspect of what we call marraige. I don't know about the economy, but I don't think letting friends without benefits have civil unions is such a bad idea. The article/whatever also mentioned the couple checking off which benefits they wanted with their civil union. So they can pick and choose exactly what kind of arrangement it is. I think it's an intriguing concept.
Posts: 1056 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
When I was about 19, I introduced two of my friends (one male, one female) to each other. A little over a month later, they were married. They didn't have any kind of romantic feelings toward each other, and both regularly slept with other people while they were married. They just wanted to get financial aid, and figured out that if they were married they wouldn't have to count their parents' incomes.
As soon as they got old enough that this was a moot point, they got a quickie divorce. Peter told me that they did finally end up having sex once, but it was after they had divorced, and it wasn't especially meaningful to either of them.
Try to keep in mind that our modern romantic views of marriage can be just as easily exploited by people of either gender.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm sure it's been said here before, but our modern ideas of marriage being a way to cement a relationship with someone you've grown to love and want to spend the rest of your life with is a fairly recent invention. Marrying a friend so that you can share insurance is probably closer to the traditional purpose of marriage than the reasons most people here have tied the knot.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
What's to prevent people from marrying just so they can get covered by insurance?
Excellent point Tom. Of course, there is much more to it that getting insurance benefits. If your partner dies while the Civil Union or Marriage are in effect, you have legal rights to all his/her property. Further, upon dissolving the marriage/union in the event that the friendship has soured, either partner can make legal demands for continued support, and can claim half of your assets.
People are not going to risk everything by entering into a marriage/union just to get insurance benefits. With the benefits and rights, also comes substantial legal responsibilities.
Just passing it along. STeve/BlueWizard
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would note, in response to Senoj's "consent of society" argument, that there was a time when society did not consent to inter-racial marriages. Some people still don't, and would no doubt like to impose their view on the rest of society. Some of those even have religious reasons for believing as they do. What is the difference between this, and similar opposition to gay marriage?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:People are not going to risk everything by entering into a marriage/union just to get insurance benefits. With the benefits and rights, also comes substantial legal responsibilities
There are plenty of people who DO.
I knew a soldier who was going to marry a friend just so that they could split the additional pay he'd get for being married and overseas.
People marry for green cards (I know a girl who is considering this right now).
quote:(Do you know what's really fun? When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it would be about the fact that the 6th of June this year will be the 06/06/06 and some people think the devil will come on Earth or whatever. [Smile] )
Me too, Anna!
Oddly, according to some groups, this could actually happen in the guise of said amendment. One way or the other, actually.
We're all doomed. Doooomed!
On a more serious note, I'm liking what Baron Samedi is saying in this thread, and also what KoM just said.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would note, in response to Senoj's "consent of society" argument, that there was a time when society did not consent to inter-racial marriages. Some people still don't, and would no doubt like to impose their view on the rest of society. Some of those even have religious reasons for believing as they do. What is the difference between this, and similar opposition to gay marriage?
Very little. I think it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages. I would say they are doing the right thing (civically) while disagreeing with their stance (morally).
The main problem with modern marriage (IMO) is that it no longer has a strong base in the community, which probably makes my central argument outdated. Couples can run off to Vegas, get married, and then move to any community in the country and claim marriage rights (and responsibilities, but let's not bring that up). While on one side I think this is good, because it brings us together as a nation, on the other side I think it takes away much of the power that marriages used to have.
Also, I should probably note at this point that I've not been talking about the federal marriage amendment, per se. A federal amendment would serve the ends I desire, but in exactly the wrong way (by further removing marriage from the purview of the communities from which it derives its strength). I'm more in favor of changing local and state laws and constitutions than in further federalizing the institution. I think the patchwork that other posters have indicated as a bad thing, is what I'd prefer (at least in the short term). I'd rather have consensus emerge than be imposed.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Do you know what's really fun? When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it would be about the fact that the 6th of June this year will be the 06/06/06 and some people think the devil will come on Earth or whatever. [Smile] )
"Why, this is hell. Nor are we out of it."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages.
Seriously?
Senoj, I get what you are saying--right to opinion, and all that. But in my mind that right does not extend to the right to persecute and restrict the rights of others.
If opposing recognition of inter-racial marriages *isn't* illegal (and I'm not sufficiently sure of freedom of expression laws to state that it is illegal, though I suspect it is), then it should be, and I want to know who to call.
quote:I'd rather have consensus emerge than be imposed.
Maybe back in 1860 we should have waited until the South U.S. decided on thier own to give up slavery? (not that I am comparing not being able to get married to slavery, but the underlying prinicple is the same). Equal rights despite [insert distinction here]: a good thing.
Think of it like this: I, as a woman, have the right to marry a man. My male friend does not. And vice versa. I don't think that's equal.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Couples can run off to Vegas, get married, and then move to any community in the country and claim marriage rights (and responsibilities, but let's not bring that up). While on one side I think this is good, because it brings us together as a nation, on the other side I think it takes away much of the power that marriages used to have.
While I don't disagree that marriage should be more sacrosanct than it is, it's worth noting that people have been having quickie Vegas marriages for longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Very little. I think it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages. I would say they are doing the right thing (civically) while disagreeing with their stance (morally).
posted
A note for people commenting on the fact that gay sex is legal now: one of the major reasons cited for making marital recognition a fundamental constitutional due process right in the line of cases which did so is that marriage was the only way it was legal to have sex in this country for a very long time. Now that this is no longer the case, I doubt it will change any analysis. But it's an interesting side note, I think.
quote:You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance? I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically. Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
I think the logistical problems are almost nil, Belle. It's one of the reasons I support expanding civil marriage to same sex couples.
Here's why I think they are nil. If we took every statute or case holding which is still active, we could run a search and replace on it:
1.) Replace each instance of "man" or "woman" with "person."
2.) Replace each instance of "husband" or "wife" with spouse.
3.) Replace each gender-specific pronoun or pronoun phrase with a non-gender-specific equivalent.
I bet there isn't more than one or two gender-specific doctrines left in marriage law. The most significant gender-specific doctrine yet is called "presumption of paternity" which states that any child born to a married woman is considered to be the child of the husband unless the husband was away during the time of conception. The exception could be modified simply to say, "when it is not physically possible for the spouse to have fathered the child."
Probate? Not a problem. Everything marriage contributed to probate is related to the fact that there is only one spouse at a time (a reason I don't think polygamy marriages would have to be recognized if same-sex marriages are). Dependence is based on laws of parental duty/right, child custody, and paternity, not marriage laws. Most states have gotten rid of gender-specific duties of support and service (the wife used to have a right to support from the husband, the husband to services from the wife). Now the rights flow in both directions (doctrinally if not in implementation).
Abandonment (the wife's duty to follow the husband) has been struck down in most states. Gender-specific alimony laws have been struck down. Hell, it used to be vagrancy for a husband to live off the earnings of his wife (living off her inheritance was another story ).
In short, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single gender-specific doctrine of marital law which is not easily and naturally translated. I'd love to see someone do a hornbook study of marriage laws in effect to prove this.
However, it would be a very powerful argument against civil gay marriage to show that a significant portion of marriage laws would have to be rewritten. There are a LOT of very smart advocates opposing same-sex marriage who are capable of finding the laws that would have to be rewritten, and they haven't done so.
On the religious side. I'm going to state something bluntly which I usually don't: I think Marriage as an institution necessarily involves a man and a woman. That is, I don't think there is such a thing as "same-sex Marriage" when viewed from a natural law perspective.
That being said, there are other elements of what I think is necessary to Marriage that are not reflected in the laws of our country. This is why I favor getting rid of civil marriage entirely and going with civil unions. Ideally, I'd like EVERYONE to stop thinking of the legal entity as "marriage" because I think the legal definition is so powerful that it backwashes into each person's concept of "Marriage" as a religious, social, or philosophical entity. I don't want to see that happen, nor do I think it would be right if it did happen.
People talk about law defining morality - it's one of the principle reasons raised in opposition to same sex marriage. One response to law defining morality is to alter the law so that it doesn't differ from "morality".
Another way is to ruthlessly break the link between law and morality in certain situations. Because I think every person should be generally free to define Marriage for him or herself, I want the government affecting that as little as possible.
(Please, do not say I'm trying to remove morality from law. I'm not, but it would be a tiresome diversion to fully explain right now.)
Therefore I envision government's contribution to marriage being legal recognition of civil unions between one consenting adult person and another without consanguinity (however that is defined in a state). It creates a package of legal duties and rights and also creates a default designatee in a host of situations: medical decision making during incapacity, probate, etc.
The two positions I've advocated for most strongly on this board are generally not viewed as co-existing in a lot of people. Although I think the general view might be wrong, the public advocates on each side are generally in lockstep on both issues. However, in my case, each illustrate a basic principle I try to apply when deciding what the law should be: People should generally be allowed the largest amount of room possible for the exercise of their own conscience, but the more a person other than the actor is directly affected by the actor's conduct, the stronger the justification for the use of the coercive power of law is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If opposing recognition of inter-racial marriages *isn't* illegal (and I'm not sufficiently sure of freedom of expression laws to state that it is illegal, though I suspect it is), then it should be, and I want to know who to call.
I'm a little confused by what you're saying.
Are you saying that you think it should be illegal for someone to oppose recognition of inter-racial marriages?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I like your reasoning. And nicely put.
Yes, I think it should be illegal to oppose *legal* recognition of inter-racial marriages, because to do so is discrimination based on race. I'm not sure it actually *is* illegal, though.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People should generally be allowed the largest amount of room possible for the exercise of their own conscience, but the more a person other than the actor is directly affected by the actor's conduct, the stronger the justification for the use of the coercive power of law is.
For the record, I very much agree with this, even if I may not stand by your definition of "person". Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by "oppose"? I'm haveing serious free speech concerns here.
Enacting laws or rules based on the notion that one race is somehow superior or more valid than another should be illegal. People who support non-recognition of inter-racial marraiage are, IMO, discrimiating based on race.
I don't know whether just some individual states or the whole country has a law banning discrimiation based on race, sex, creed, etc, but if the region within which someone is proposing not recognizing inter-racial marriage (legally, not within a religion) has one of those laws, then it's illegal, right? I think it should be.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're mixing two concepts here: opposition and enactment.
Let's use a scenario. Private citizen Ken Keating Kain decides he doesn't like that inter-racial marriages are recognized. He takes the following steps:
1.) Forms an organization whose stated goal is the passage of a state constitutional amendment banning inter-racial marriage.
2.) Solicits and receives donations based on an honest description of his goal.
3.) Buys ads on television to raise awareness.
4.) Files the necessary papers to put the proposed amendment on the ballot.
5.) Gathers signatures to qualify the ballot initiative.
6.) Campaigns for passage of the initiative.
7.) Votes in favor of the initiative on election day.
Which of these should be illegal?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly the first one; it (along with number three) would certainly be illegal in most of Europe. Americans have a more laissez-faire attitude to that kind of thing, though, lacking Europe's recent history of nastiness.
Presumably, it is the job of the courts to protect us from people like this, yes? (Can a constitutional amendment be found un-constitutional?)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can a constitutional amendment be found un-constitutional?
State constitutional amendments can be found to violate the federal constitution and will be struck down on that basis. This absolutely violates the federal constitution - we have caselaw absolutely on point - so it would be struck down.
My thought is that all 7 should be legal, mostly because of a technical view of the way cases and controversies have to arise.
I can see striking down the presence of the initiative on the ballot, but, for the same technical reasons, I think it'd be better to strike the amendment immediately after passage (counting on about 20 groups to have a facial challenge drafted and waiting).
Regardless, I think all 7 acts are constitutionally protected exercises of assembly, free speech, and petitioning the government. If the ballot itself were struck down, 5 would be punishable as fraud and 7 would be impossible. 6 would be a nullity - there would be nothing to campaign for.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
However if he manages to get it passed, the courts should strike it down rendering all his effort pointless.
The only real problem would be if he managed to get a ban on interracial marriage into the constitution. Then we'd all be in trouble. My self included, since, depending how it was written and interpretted it could annul my own marriage. (I am white/native american. My husband is Jewish.)
My terseness gets me into trouble. I'm often times misunderstood because I assume my reader knows too many of my premises as givens.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically.
I don't mean to point out the obvious, but these days, many people have friends of the opposite gender. What's to prevent them from marrying just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
That you think marriage might suffer a sudden and drastic decline in quality and commitment if we allow homosexuals to marry reveals significant bias.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
Now don't attack me and say that I'm saying denying people equal rights is okay if there's an economic impact - not saying that. Just saying that regardless, there are potential problems that need to be looked at and solutions that would need to be found if society does indeed move toward the civil union for any two consenting adults.
And it would need to be defined, as proved by SenojRetep's question and Tom's response - apparently people do think there should be some limits on who can form civil unions. How do we define those limits and who gets to decide on them?
I think Tom laid out decent guidelines for marriage. Of age, consenting, and not immediately related -- that last condition thrown in to avoid both sexual abuse and the dangers of inbreeding. I have no problem with first cousins marrying.
And that looks a lot like... current marriage laws. Simply with gender requirements removed, since it seems society has discovered that love and commitment aren't determined by the shape or function of genetalia.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Dagonee's long post above; very good points made there.
In the shorter post nearer above, regarding the actions of Private citizen Ken Keating Kain and his Seven efforts to stop inter-racial marriage. I think all of those are legal, but MOST of them involve the cooperation of other people who I am confident would be very uncooperative.
For example, buying television or newspaper ads to promote anti-inter-racial marriage views. Very few modern mainstream TV, Radio, and Newspapers are going to allow that kind of speech on their public mediums. It's too outrageous and would most likely anger the majority of the people who are paying the bills.
Now realistically, minor newspapers, etc... who already have a view favoring anti-inter-racial marriage, would likely to take the advertisement. And there might be an obscure public access White Power cable TV show, but I suspect it would have a very small audience.
People also have a right to lobby government and suggest laws that support their own personal view. That is part of the democratic process.
So, I think all the suggested things should be legal, we can't restict freedom, especially freedom of speech, just because the people speaking don't agree with our views.
So, it should be legal to oppose inter-racial marriage and to promote that view, even to the point of lobbying Congress to change the laws. Of course, Congress is never going to act on Law that would so enrage a majority of the population. In other words, they are free to take action within the bounds of the law, but they should not expect to get results.
Freedom isn't only for the people who agree with you.
Of course, it should be clear that I am making general statements here. This is in no way directed at Dagonee, whose comments seem very reasonable to me.
quote: So, it should be legal to oppose inter-racial marriage and to promote that view, even to the point of lobbying Congress to change the laws.
And when the law conflicts with the basic rights of citizens, as defined by the Constitution, it should even be legal to change the Constitution. But when we do that, we need to remember that we're not just bullying through a law; we're redefining the Rights of Man.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the argument that "gay marriage" or civil union will undermine our current form of marriage in our society is utter tripe. People who use that argument like to conveniently forget that, in an America where "gay marriage" is currently not legal in the overwhelming majority of the states and in a majority of those states is currently illegal according to state law, 50% of all marriages STILL end in divorce.
It's rediculous to say that giving the one segment of the population a right that they do not currently have will cause heterosexual couples to divorce or choose not to marry. In the last 10 years or so, a tiny segment of the population has risen up to fight for the right to marry and/or have a civil union. All of a sudden, that one segment, the one that desperately wants the legal rights afforded to married couples, are being pointed to by those who fear the breakdown of the family and being called the problem.
Since this country does have a separation of church and state, no religion would be forced to perform a marriage for a homosexual couple if they didn't want to. What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
Why should parents and/or siblings who turned their back on their relative 10, 20 or more years ago when they found out that their son/daugther/brother/sister was gay have more right to make these determinations or inherit property than the partner that stood by this person's side throughout their lifetime? Why should grandparents who have had little or no contact with a grandchild due to estrangement with their own children be preferred guardians over the other parent who has helped to lovingly raise a child?
Religious beliefs aside, if this amendment is added to the Constitution it will not be protecting the so called "sanctity of marriage," it will instead be telling a significant portion of society that because they love differently, they are inferior to others. It will give hate-mongers and bigots standing in our society to make the argument that because homosexuals are inferior, crimes against homosexuals should not be classified as "hate crimes," even when those crimes are hate based.
Don't support a law that tells a minority group that they are inferior because of who their sexual partners are. CERTAINLY don't support a Constitutional Amendment that does so.
In the words of Whoopi Goldberg, "If you have such a problem with gay people getting married, don't marry one."
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading through this I have come to the conclusion that I do not consent to straight people getting married.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I read the discussion of the inter-racial marriage opposition and I think I might see why people are opposed to gay marriage. Will people in 50 years view opposition to gay marriage the same way we view opposition to inter-racial marriages? If you believe homosexual behavior is a sin, if homosexual marriage is allowed, does that make you a villian?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Ok, I read the discussion of the inter-racial marriage opposition and I think I might see why people are opposed to gay marriage. Will people in 50 years view opposition to gay marriage the same way we view opposition to inter-racial marriages? If you believe homosexual behavior is a sin, if homosexual marriage is allowed, does that make you a villian?
I don't think so. What I do think is that the religious community and more specifically the Christian community (of which I am a member) is trying to force their religious beliefs into law which should be a big no-no in our country. One of the reasons that people came to this country was to escape from religious persecution in countries where there was no separation of church and state. You are certainly entitled to any beliefs that you choose to have. I will stand up and argue that atheists have the right not to believe in God. I'll even make the argument that Satanists have the right to believe in whatever they want. SO LONG as those beliefs do not infringe on my civil liberties.
People who don't believe in inter-racial marriages have every right to express that opinion and so do people who don't agree with gay marriage. But that doesn't give them the right to infringe on other people's civil liberties because of their beliefs.
If an amendment is passed banning gay marriage, I believe that opponents of gay marriage are more likely to be villified in 50 years not less.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I don't think it is necessary, as every Democrat except for one, and even a couple Republicans are against this measure (which dooms it to failure) in the Senate, I just emailed both Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the Senators from Michigan to voice my intense disapproval for this proposed amendment. Carl Levin stated right on his website that he opposes the measure, and I hope Stabenow agrees.
I do not oppose individual states choosing not to allow gay marriage. Marriage, as a religious institution shouldn't be legislated by anyone, I think it's ridiculous that we're even talking about it. But the legal rights inherent in a marriage are where the government comes into play, and restricting those rights is a violation of civil rights. It doesn't matter who the person is, be they gay, straight, black, white, native, naturalized citizen, young or old, Jew, Christian, or Muslim (etc), they are all afforded equal protection under the law.
If churches want to deny gay marriages, that is their right. But government must provide a legal substitute, a la civil unions, to those that want them, that affords every legal right that a marriage would afford to a straight couple.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
