I'm quite disappointed. If the legistlature was more representative of the general populace, the resolution would have passed easily. As it is, it looked like it would pass anyway. The pro-gay marriage camp has been delaying the vote for weeks, trying to get enough representatives to switch votes. I guess they finally got enough today.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they can always try again. It just won't reach the ballot until 2010 or something like that.
Also, if the populace wasn't consistently fomented by out-of-state anti-SSM folks, they probably wouldn't care that much. They might have a preference reflected in the polls, but I never sensed a whole lot of sincere outrage. And further, had the lawmakers really felt strongly, they could have voted without being influenced by any carrots that may have been dangled in front of them by party leaders.
Of course, I agree with the outcome. The mechanics of it leave me a bit squeamish though, and really both sides were pulling the same stunts.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Of course, I agree with the outcome. The mechanics of it leave me a bit squeamish though, and really both sides were pulling the same stunts.
That pretty well sums up how I feel.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disappointing?? It's a great victory! Considering how many more States have passed similar bans against gay marriage...tis only fair.
I too am a little squeamish with the ban on referendum...but the masses can be fickle on the Rights of minorities...which is why the Great Compromise (along with Justices appointed for life) was agreed apon in the first place. The civil rights movement for Blacks might have been stopped in a huge number of States if not for similar methods.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not squeamish at all that the legislature voted down the referendum. The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right. I don't think we should be voting on allowing minorities to have fundamental rights. Thats what a liberal democracy is all about.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 768 -770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 -176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
The Supreme Court did not mean anything other than marriage between a man and a woman when it made those rulings.
I'm in the "right result, unhappy about the process" camp.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right.
Everyone, including people who are gay, have at least the right to marry some member of the opposite sex at least. If they choose not to because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, that is their decision, not a violation of their rights.
I think it should be clear that one does not have a right to marry anyone one loves. For instance, many love people who do not love them back. For those people, they cannot marry the one they love. Some people love someone who is already married. Some people love children. Some people want to marry their siblings. These groups also are not allowed to marry the person of their choice. In each of these cases there is some good reason why society deems it necessary to limit the people one is allowed to marry.
The question is, does society have some good reason to limit marriages only to those of the opposite sex? I think that is an issue for the people of each state to decide, not something that needs to be decided on a national level by a court.
It should be noted, however, that there is at least one major case where America thought it had a good reason for limiting marriages, and later realized their reason was wrong. Interracial marriages used to be outlawed. But there was no reason for this except pure racism, which we eventually concluded was unfair.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right.
Everyone, including people who are gay, have at least the right to marry some member of the opposite sex at least. If they choose not to because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, that is their decision, not a violation of their rights.
Any time I hear this put forward as an argument, it makes me sick. Turn it around on yourself:
"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps you're too sensitive to have a discussion on the matter, then.
However, considering that the procreative aspect of marriage is one of the primary justifications for having legal institutions to protect it, you ought at least to be able to see the relevance of such an argument. It's one thing to disagree with it, but it's another to be made ill by it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It makes you "sick"?
Perhaps you're too sensitive to have a discussion on the matter, then.
However, considering that the procreative aspect of marriage is one of the primary justifications for having legal institutions to protect it, you ought at least to be able to see the relevance of such an argument. It's one thing to disagree with it, but it's another to be made ill by it.
It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it. But I always get emotional when I see people, otherwise good people, trying to take away or limit the rights of others.
As for the procreative aspect of marriage...does this mean that couple who don't wish to ever have children should be banned from marrying? How about couples where either member can't have children, for some biological reason or another? Should we make an amendment to take away their rights to get married as well?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it.
Trying to view their arguments from their motives, not the one you assume ("bigotry") is the ONLY way to have a productive exchange of ideas on the subject.
quote:As for the procreative aspect of marriage...does this mean that couple who don't wish to ever have children should be banned from marrying? How about couples where either member can't have children, for some biological reason or another? Should we make an amendment to take away their rights to get married as well?
No. In fact, I don't favor banning same sex couples from getting the benefits of civil marriage, as I stated above.
Moreover, there are many over- and under-inclusive restrictions on civil institutions, designed to include as many situations central to the core purpose of the institution while including as few outlying situations as possible. When drawing such boundaries, the effort, obtrusiveness, and extra costs deriving from including or excluding situations incorrectly are all considered.
It's far less obtrusive to note that two people are the same sex than to demand medical records showing proof of fertility and signed statements of intent to procreate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, IMO, while the procreation link is definitely strong legal precedent and foundation of how the judiciary views marriage, this just brings to light the fact that the judiciary is a bit behind when compared to how the legislative and executive parts of our governments have used marriage status to confer a whole lot of non-procreative rights/privileges/responsibilities. Hopefully the wheels of justice will slowly turn and catch up with this reality, one way or the other.
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
I disagree. The majority of people of a state defining something does not make that thing reasonable or fair. As we almost always touch on, the majority of people once wanted marriage to be defined between two people of the same race. That did not make that view reasonable or fair.
Marriage should not be defined by the state. It should be defined by the individuals who wish to marry eachother.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering how many more States have passed similar bans against gay marriage...tis only fair.
Boy, I disagree. No matter what your opinion about this subject, tit-for-tat legislation isn't the way to go about things.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage should not be defined by the state. It should be defined by the individuals who wish to marry eachother.
Historically marriage has been protected by the state in order to help stabilize society, and to help protect children. (Dag pointed this out in his first posts)
Maybe what's needed is a discussion on how we should redefine the state's role in marriage, separate from the same-sex issue.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
...
In any event, stories like these, even when they're good news like today, always fill me with despair. I can't stand reading the words of otherwise good people saying horrible things about gays and their rights. Used to it would rile me up, now it just makes me want to take my ball and go home. If the good people can be so full of evil, what's the point of building connections with anyone?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
See, Javert, this is why taking the time to understand another's position is valuable.
Your making a hypothetical that ignores what (to some) is the central distinction and calling the result not sane is not going to convince anyone.
Pixiest's post, however, attempts to persuade in a manner that acknowledges the distinction and addresses it in (to me) a sufficient manner.
Even if it doesn't convince others, it's still a conversation. Like Scott, Pixiest is speaking to what it is about marriage that makes it worthy of such extensive state support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
See, Javert, this is why taking the time to understand another's position is valuable.
Your making a hypothetical that ignores what (to some) is the central distinction and calling the result not sane is not going to convince anyone.
You misunderstand me. I was not trying to convince anyone. It certainly was not my intent to do so. If it were I would have taken a much different approach. All I was doing was showing my disgust for what seems to me to be bigotry.
By my actions of turning the arguments on their heads I was trying to show how silly and condescending those arguments can be.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was not trying to convince anyone.... By my actions of turning the arguments on their heads I was trying to show how silly and condescending those arguments can be.
It seems you were trying to show someone that a particular argument was silly and condescending - which seems so close to trying to convince someone that I can't really see the difference.
If this was your intent, then you failed, because you did not take into account what the people holding views different from yours think distinguishes the two situations. Failure to either understand or acknowledge (I'm not sure which) made your attempt to show unsuccessful.
Which is what I've been attempting to show.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it.
Trying to view their arguments from their motives, not the one you assume ("bigotry") is the ONLY way to have a productive exchange of ideas on the subject.
If someone comes up to me in an alley and tries to rob me, I don't see that a "productive exchange of ideas on the subject" with the robber is anything but a waste of time.
Either I can stop him, or I can't. If I can't, I can't, and I'll do my best to survive the crime. If I can, then it devolves to the question of whether I have the will to do so or not. If I don't, then it's pretty much my own fault. If I do, then I do.
You choose to frame this as a question of "Tut, tut... shall I have milk in my tea or not?" when it's actually a question of, "Check out the homos. Should I mug them or not?"
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
I disagree. The majority of people of a state defining something does not make that thing reasonable or fair. As we almost always touch on, the majority of people once wanted marriage to be defined between two people of the same race. That did not make that view reasonable or fair.
Hold on a second. You're making assumptions. How do you know that Xaposert agrees that laws against mixed race marriage were either unreasonable or unfair. Based on what he's posted here, it seems likely that he'd say they were both reasonable and fair at the time.
Which, I submit, says more about Xaposert than it does about the topic under discussion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone comes up to me in an alley and tries to rob me, I don't see that a "productive exchange of ideas on the subject" with the robber is anything but a waste of time.
Either I can stop him, or I can't. If I can't, I can't, and I'll do my best to survive the crime.
Lisa, we live in a democracy. Which means that, ultimately, the public must consent to the extension of civil marriage rights to same sex couples.
A productive exchange of ideas has the potential to stop the denial of such rights. Pulling a gun out and pointing it at a single person does not.
quote:You choose to frame this as a question of "Tut, tut... shall I have milk in my tea or not?" when it's actually a question of, "Check out the homos. Should I mug them or not?"
Beyond your utterly ridiculous characterization of how I "frame" this, you have demonstrated that you, specifically, have zero chance of accomplishing anything with respect to "stopping" them.
I have convinced people to change their mind on this issue. How's your method worked for you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out that I was suggesting a role for government only as it applies to marriage. There are other things I think that government should do
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boy I'm gonna be happy when same-sex marriage is legal across the states and society can move on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Yes how unfortunate that the SSM debate is not the foundation upon which all civilization is judged.
edit: Bah! I just ignored what I said I would do in my previous post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hold on a second. You're making assumptions. How do you know that Xaposert agrees that laws against mixed race marriage were either unreasonable or unfair. Based on what he's posted here, it seems likely that he'd say they were both reasonable and fair at the time.
I think almost anyone here probably has come to the correct conclusion that I don't think banning mixed race marriages is fair. But, I'll explain anyway:
I said "If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such."
Do you think there was a good reason to exclude interracial marriages from being real marriages? I don't believe there was, so based on what I've posted here, I would say banning interracial marriages on the grounds they aren't really marriages would in fact be unfair. Their reason was simply racism, which I believe is wrong, and which the people collectively made unconstitutional (as far as the government can be racist, at least).
Incidently, I also don't think any good reason exists to exclude gay marriages either. But a significant number of people do.
quote:boy I'm gonna be happy when same-sex marriage is legal across the states and society can move on.
It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Yes how unfortunate that the SSM debate is not the foundation upon which all civilization is judged.
edit: Bah! I just ignored what I said I would do in my previous post.
Not the SSM debate, but ridding our society of outdated taboos.(sp?)
Now go and wait for Pixiest to bring her ball back. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I should point out that I was suggesting a role for government only as it applies to marriage. There are other things I think that government should do
You can't stop me from agreeing with you about this, though. So there.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
That's no proof, though, Stephan. Germany granted civil rights to animals. The fact that another country does something doesn't mean that they're ahead of America.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
How do you mean?
There's still a debate over, among other things, whether abortion is harming a person or not. Any argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything both exceedingly abstract and utterly lame, and won't hold the attention that abortion does.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
That's no proof, though, Stephan. Germany granted civil rights to animals. The fact that another country does something doesn't mean that they're ahead of America.
Good point, but I didn't necessarily say they were ahead of us overall.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Thirded.
But that's exactly what the legislature chose not to do in this situation. The amendment would have created a governemental "civil union" similar to those in VT and NJ, which would have had all separated the contract to protect children, while extricating them from the process of deciding what should be recognized as "marriage." They chose to wade in rather than try to extract themselves.
I think it was a cowardly decision, it was wrong on both a political and an intellectual level, and I feel like my views (and those of a large portion of the state population) have been disregarded.
But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But that's exactly what the legislature chose not to do in this situation. The amendment would have created a governemental "civil union" similar to those in VT and NJ, which would have had all separated the contract to protect children, while extricating them from the process of deciding what should be recognized as "marriage." They chose to wade in rather than try to extract themselves.
You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
A Cubs fan in Massachusetts?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look up "liberal democracy." It's not the same thing as "democracy."
Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
But these marriages (I resist the impulse to scarequote out of respect) aren't recognized by the federal government either. SS couples who are married in MA cannot file jointly on federal tax returns (or, at least, could be taken to court for doing so). The federal benefits of marriage are not currently enjoyed or ensured by these couples.
The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections. Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
A Cubs fan in Massachusetts?
My Red Sox blood bleeds Cubbie blue; which is to say, I'd root for the Sox, unless they were playing the Cubs.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
