Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It depends on whether the eyes of the law see eye to eye with you. One could argue, as I have, that marriage itself is contrary to the notion of equal protection
That was not the case that was brought to the court, though.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
that this be ruled a State's Rights issue. Something you appear to oppose.
For reasons clearly outlined – individual rights trump states rights. The point of contention isn't on the latter, it's on the former.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And I maintain that if they do anything, they will put lipstick on a pig.
I don't disagree. I already acknowledged on previous cases that some of the questions and situations presented created incredible paradoxes that I don't have the legal knowledge to capably answer.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The SCOTUS can rule in favor of SSM and it's still going to be wrong, in the eyes of the law. IMO.
Based on a rather unique interpretation of marriage, though, right? As argued in front of the court, I don't see how it would be wrong.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, gays are equal as a class just as blood relatives are equal as a class (except for marriage!). Why is marriage different that it would be excluded from immediate consideration in context of homosexuals and civil rights? Because marriage is a unique right that is extended by government and homosexuality is an obscure class. Both of these mean to me that, in the eyes of the law, the SCOTUS doesn't really have to do a thing.
I agree that if the SCOTUS doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, the odds of a favorable ruling drop dramatically.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, I disagree. This is what the amendment process was designed for.
This has been pulled out ad nauseum, but if the folks in Cali decided to constitutionally ban interracial marriage would this be ok?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The relevant factor of interracial marriage was race. You were arguing that there had been no one tripping over one another during Loving v Virginia and I disagree. The ruling on interracial marriage came just 3 years after landmark Federal civil rights legislation for blacks.
What I'm reading is, in the eyes of the law, interracial marriage was not as controversial as it was socially. Prior to civil rights, to paraphrase you, "Folks didn't regard blacks as equals in the traditional sense of equality and protection." That feeling had not changed dramatically with regards to society yet in the eyes of the law...


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This may save you some disappointment when the rulings come down in June.
I'm not sure where you're getting that I think June's ruling is a foregone conclusion. I think history's take on gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. It's not like the SCOTUS hasn't been on the wrong side of history before.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's the Great Experiment and if it's progress you're seeking -- there are several States leading the charge. Vermont for example, legalized SSM unions over 13 years ago. Law is going to reflect people regardless, just as it did in Loving v Virginia.
What is a Great Experiment? Gay marriage? Does it have some great implications I'm not aware of? (Totally serious, BTW. I don't see any implication gay marriage could have that straight marriage isn't already doing – aside from tacit government approval of homosexuality which already exists as far as discrimination in every other area)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's just another issue for which disagreement makes liberals sick. Sheeple make me sick. Marriage is not in the constitution, but States Rights are in the 10th Amendment. Don't like that? Amend it. Otherwise, it will likely be handled by the States, in the eyes of the law. Equal protection?
Exactly. There is the 14th to consider.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There is no aspect of contract law unavailable to you based on sexual orientation. Right now, you and I can enter a contractual partnership granting me all the rights of marriage. We just won't have the privilege of compensation.
Or the word. Which was debated before the SCOTUS as being meaningful. Contractual partnership also strikes me separate but unequal (more difficult)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're arguing that it's a civil rights issue akin to racial equality and I maintain that it's more of a complex social issue and the SCOTUS will essentially kick this back to the States.
How is it a social issue? Because people don't like it? Wasn't integration a social issue?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A very bad thing. Now establish for me why a discriminatory institution should include gays?
I haven't seen any reasoning for why we have state sponsored marriage that isn't contradicted by exceptions that exist within the current straight demographics. The SCOTUS arguments reaffirmed this for me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel there's a point of logic that must be escaping me as to how his position is not actually rational.
I don't follow. "He" who? And are you wondering why I think he's not rational or why you do?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't follow. "He" who? And are you wondering why I think he's not rational or why you do?
The origin of the entire conversation, Skeleton. The counsel for the defense of DOMA (or Prop 8, I forget which)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 04:15 PM
 
What he said followed a rational logic: if (as he claims) marriage was invented to trick people into having children, then including gays runs the risk of making that trick stop working. It's incorrect, not irrational. Marriage wasn't invented to produce children, it was invented to enslave women
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What he said followed a rational logic: if (as he claims) marriage was invented to trick people into having children, then including gays runs the risk of making that trick stop working.
Doesn't the fact that straights aren't held to that standard show its either a lie or irrational?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Doesn't the fact that straights aren't held to that standard show its either a lie or irrational?
Not if the "trick" is actually working, even without the holding. Apparently only 2.4% of US women were voluntarily childless going into the 1980s (before gay rights started gaining traction). Why would they have bothered holding them to something they were doing regardless, possibly even making things worse?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Not if the "trick" is actually working, even without the holding.
Man, for some reason I struggle with your posts. What holding?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why would they have bothered holding them to something they were doing regardless, possibly even making things worse?
What?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Apparently only 2.4% of US women were voluntarily childless going into the 1980s (before gay rights started gaining traction).
If I'm reading correctly, it's good paying jobs and good education that's helping people go voluntarily childless. Oh and birth control, no doubt. Marriage has no effect on the first two.


Which brings me to the other part of that argument that bothers me – people have children (accidentally or consciously) all the time outside of marriage. You don't need marriage for people to have kids.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Man, for some reason I struggle with your posts. What holding?
From where you said "straights aren't being held to that standard."


What?
If it ain't broke don't fix it.


If I'm reading correctly, it's good paying jobs and good education that's helping people go voluntarily childless. Oh and birth control, no doubt. Marriage has no effect on the first two.
Next on the chopping block, no doubt
He can say that these factors haven't been an issue long enough yet to determine causality and decide on a response.


Which brings me to the other part of that argument that bothers me – people have children (accidentally or consciously) all the time outside of marriage. You don't need marriage for people to have kids.
There are "good" children and "bad" children, obviously. You don't need marriage for children, but maybe you need marriage for the "good" kind (more accurately: marriage increases the chances of "good" vs "bad"). "Good" can mean two married, biological parents, and "bad" is any deviance from that formula. If excluding gay marriage can pressure a "borderline" gay person into living in a straight marriage, then eventually maybe they will produce children in this formula instead of the "inferior" formula of gay adoption or whatever the other alternatives are. I wouldn't expect Cooper to be politically incorrect enough to characterize the "gay" part as "inferior," but if he called adoption "inferior" to biological parenting I think he would be able to get away with that.

The whole line of reasoning runs afoul of several other principles of our government, but it doesn't contradict itself, which is why I think it's "rational."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
From where you said "straights aren't being held to that standard."
Okay, gotcha. The trick working despite them not enforcing this standard undermines their argument to me.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
As this case demonstrates, legally it is may be broken.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
He can say that these factors haven't been an issue long enough yet to determine causality and decide on a response.
I'd say its been 30 years, how much time does he need?



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There are "good" children and "bad" children, obviously. You don't need marriage for children, but maybe you need marriage for the "good" kind (more accurately: marriage increases the chances of "good" vs "bad"). "Good" can mean two married, biological parents, and "bad" is any deviance from that formula. If excluding gay marriage can pressure a "borderline" gay person into living in a straight marriage, then eventually maybe they will produce children in this formula instead of the "inferior" formula of gay adoption or whatever the other alternatives are. I wouldn't expect Cooper to be politically incorrect enough to characterize the "gay" part as "inferior," but if he called adoption "inferior" to biological parenting I think he would be able to get away with that.

The whole line of reasoning runs afoul of several other principles of our government, but it doesn't contradict itself, which is why I think it's "rational."
Wait, are you inferring he could have gotten away with calling adoption inferior or did he actually say that?

– This is where I expected it to go because I think this is what they actually believe in. Having children raised in the traditional family structure yields better results. I won't dispute that because I believe the science back that up. The caveat being that it is not the only way to raise children successfully.

After that, I have to ask if they think that structure is important for children who were created thorough medical means (artificial insemination, in vitro), external means (surrogate mothers) and the adopted.

If the answer is in the affirmative, I would point out that children raised by gay couples have been shown to be successful and ask if that would make him reconsider his position. I'd also ask him where he thought children would be better off – in foster care or adopted by gay couples.

(I'm probably going off the rails here)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The trick working despite them not enforcing this standard undermines their argument to me.
I think you're wrong. Consider the "trick" of giving away free condoms. There is no enforcing the standard that people who take free condoms have to use them for safe sex. This lack of enforcement doesn't undermine the argument that if more people ultimately do use the condoms as intended, then the "trick" must be working.


As this case demonstrates, legally it is may be broken.
Well, he's arguing that it's not.


I'd say its been 30 years, how much time does he need?
Without a precedent of making other changes (not counting rejection of change, like rejecting gays), it's easy for him to give any number. It's harder to find fault with inaction than with action.


Wait, are you inferring he could have gotten away with calling adoption inferior or did he actually say that?
I am just inferring. As I remember it (I listened on cspan radio), Scalia was the one who brought up adoption, sounding like he thought he was the smartest guy in the room, and only then was it pointed out that the case was about CA where gay adoption was already legal anyhow, and it seemed to me that Cooper would have rather the topic of adoption was never raised at all because he already knew that that fact made it a loser argument. I think Cooper only mentioned it when pressed about it.


– This is where I expected it to go because I think this is what they actually believe in. Having children raised in the traditional family structure yields better results. I won't dispute that because I believe the science back that up. The caveat being that it is not the only way to raise children successfully.

After that, I have to ask if they think that structure is important for children who were created thorough medical means (artificial insemination, in vitro), external means (surrogate mothers) and the adopted.
I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to what I described. IVF, surrogate and other fertility technology can be used by biological parents or adoptive ones, and he could simply maintain that biological is always better, and the methods used to get there are irrelevant. Personally I'm not convinced that's true, but I certainly can't prove that it's false.


If the answer is in the affirmative, I would point out that children raised by gay couples have been shown to be successful and ask if that would make him reconsider his position.
The same is undoubtedly true of straight adoptions, however many believe that they would be even better off if they could somehow be with their bio-parents.


I'd also ask him where he thought children would be better off – in foster care or adopted by gay couples.
Obviously gay couples must not need marriage in order to adopt, given that CA has gay adoption but not gay marriage. So admitting the marginal value of gay adoption over foster care doesn't require him to admit any value for gay marriage, nor does it require him to deny that straight married parents (especially biological parents) are even more better than gay adoptive parents.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2013, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't understand what's stopping them from getting the license, if they want it. The only circumstance I know of for someone to be common-law but not officially married is either that they don't care (read: not harmed) or they actually prefer it that way to make some sort of statement (read: the opposite of harmed).
If we're okay with requiring people to jump through hoops for equal protection, what's stopping gay people or others from seeking contract law for equal protection?

False. Marriage law recognizes that there already are a class of people that are different.
Wrong. Marriage law is not recognizing a privileged condition, it's creating one. Otherwise, it's cohabitation and/or love and that's it.

Exactly what benefit are you proposing single people to get? The benefits of marriage all involve sharing of things with another person; how are you claiming single people are expected to accomplish this?
Single people and unwed couples do not get the benefits and privileges that married people get. This is not equal protection. Of course, single people can share their things with other people and they can love one another.

A system having been "adjusted" at some point for nefarious purposes does not poison it for all eternity. Unless you're claiming that it's still being use now for race discrimination, I don't see how this is relevant.
It is still being used for discrimination which is why it's relevant. Right?

This might come as a surprise to you, but I don't have to think it through in order to say I would support it if certain conditions were somehow met. If you want to prove that "somehow" is theoretically impossible, be my guest. Otherwise I'm not interested in pursuing that.
I don't think you really buy this frankly. I really don't believe that you'd want all couples to submit blood tests for marriage and for the State to mandate gene therapy for offspring carrying certain mutations.

Just because civil rights are about leveling the playing field, doesn't mean you can apply that analogy to all marriage (like you did yesterday and are about to do again) or all government benefit (like you're doing now). Welfare isn't a level playing field, it's the opposite, a safety net.
If the benefits and privileges conferred upon marriage do not fit under leveling the playing field and it's not a safety net; it's something else. What I'm calling benefits and privileges creating a class of people and causing the equal protection conundrum.

False. Marriage creates a lopsided playing field; marriage law merely deals with the reality of marriage.
Wrong. The only difference between cohabitation and marriage is the State-sanctioned nature of the union which creates the equal protection conundrum through benefit and privilege.

I said that civil rights laws are about leveling the playing field, and you keep conflating that with other laws that aren't focused on civil rights.
I didn't conflate anything, Uncle. I referred to the benefits conferred upon marriage as creating privilege by elevating one class of people above another. You likened these benefits and privileges with legislation seeking to level the playing field for handicapped people. I'm inclined to follow your line of argument to maintain discourse with you over say... starting a blog of my own. If there's an equal protection conundrum, it has been created by marriage law itself.

The first and third are theoretically impossible to remedy (pending your answer to my repeated question about how that would be possible). The second is by their own choice. The fourth infringes the rights of other innocent parties (the resulting children) and is therefore non-trivial to remedy. The last is trivial to remedy and doesn't infringe the rights of any third parties.
Single people? I've answered I think twice now -- I'll go a third; contract law. Simply put, if it is unreasonable to ask gay people to seek contract law for equal protection, it is equally unreasonable for unwed couples, single people, and blood relatives. Marriage is either a civil right or it's not. It seems the problem with Marriage Law is the definition of marriage itself and unless we deal with the actual definition, we're going to continue to struggle with disenfranchisement. If marriage is simply a Writ of Love -- well then we've got an awful lot of people being disenfranchised here, not withstanding the definition of "love" of course. You say it's wrong to continue disenfranchising one sect of people because you can't rectify the matter for all sects and I maintain that it's unfortunate across the board and it's wrong to elevate homosexuals above these other disenfranchised parties for the agenda du jour or the squeakier wheel model of justice. it's silly to continue manipulating law by avoiding the root cause of the equal protection conundrum. It's just more government when they're the problem to begin with.

If at any point in any of these debates there had been a single piece of valid reasoning or experience presented in support of excluding gays from marriage, then I might be inclined to agree with you on that.
I thought we had agreed on our goal of precise verbiage. It would not be prejudiced or bigoted for one to conclude that marriage is between one man and woman as that has been a norm that transcends cultures, peoples, regions, etc... For example, why would society be compelled to extend marital benefits to a class of people that challenge the ingrained marriage paradigm (norm) through their mental illness and related proclivities? Again, the issue is not whether or not gays can marry because of course they do every day, but whether or not they can marry one another.

Yes, I would consider being convinced by hypotheticals, while I would not expect my opponent to be convinced by current but rare medical procedures. It would be foolish for someone to expect the same level of skepticism between me and the other side of the debate.
I challenged the intellectual honesty in your proposal of mandatory blood tests for all couples seeking marriage and subsequent, mandatory gene therapy though you bring up a good point. The more government oversight of such an organic human behavior, the more we subject our privacy to them and their whimsy. I don't like the idea and I really don't think you do either. We may have to agree to disagree here.

Sorry, "they" refers to "those for whom risk is important." This unambiguous reference was further clarified in the next sentence, "anyone who wants to be protected is able to." Government's role is to protect those who can't protect themselves (eg market failure).
Government does not serve this role in marriage law and never has. If I were to pursue this line of reasoning, I would leave myself open to accusations of conflating marriage privilege with the welfare safety-net. The only way to win is not to play.

But it can be tested for
But we don't do this today, why should we tomorrow?

In that case your argument for the marriage "club" is invalidated, as it fails to distinguish things that we already know are prejudiced, such as race discrimination in employment.
You offered employment discrimination and the like, not me. Again, I did not accept your premise. If you're unemployed, you're provided some relief by the government. Using your logic, all unmarried people should be eligible for government-provided relief (in support of my argument though I'm more -- all or nothing), but in the case of marriage law -- this is not so.

Yes, sometimes government does the exact opposite of level the playing field, such as the example I already gave of welfare and safety nets. That's why I didn't say government was all about leveling the playing field, I said civil rights was all about leveling the playing field, and we both know that government does more than just civil rights.
The relevant aspect of civil rights with regard to marriage has been the equal protection argument which I've already addressed ad nauseam.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2013, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If we're okay with requiring people to jump through hoops for equal protection, what's stopping gay people or others from seeking contract law for equal protection?
It's not the same because what I suggested is that they jump through the exact same hoop as everyone else, but what you suggested is that gays have a more difficult hoop than straights.


Wrong. Marriage law is not recognizing a privileged condition, it's creating one. Otherwise, it's cohabitation and/or love and that's it.
You forgot shared identity (ownership, responsibility, inheritance, visitation, power of attorney, compelled testimony, etc etc etc).


Single people and unwed couples do not get the benefits and privileges that married people get. This is not equal protection. Of course, single people can share their things with other people and they can love one another.
How were they barred from participating in marriage?


It is still being used for discrimination which is why it's relevant. Right?
I thought it would be relevant when what I thought you were saying was that we got along fine without it until the early ~1900s. Now that I see no one was ever saying that, I don't see why it's relevant at all, no.


I don't think you really buy this frankly. I really don't believe that you'd want all couples to submit blood tests for marriage and for the State to mandate gene therapy for offspring carrying certain mutations.
Either way it answers your question about whether I object to incest marriage based on the "eww" reasoning. I don't.


I didn't conflate anything, Uncle. I referred to the benefits conferred upon marriage as creating privilege by elevating one class of people above another. You likened these benefits and privileges with legislation seeking to level the playing field for handicapped people.
All I did was refute your claim that marriage was unique in recognizing (you called it "creating") a class different from others, and that sexuality was unique in what you called "fluidity." I never said they were analogous by other criteria you hadn't mentioned before. I'm reminded of good old Zimphire's favorite dilbert cartoon...


Single people? I've answered I think twice now -- I'll go a third; contract law. Simply put, if it is unreasonable to ask gay people to seek contract law for equal protection, it is equally unreasonable for unwed couples, single people, and blood relatives.
That doesn't make any sense. We're not asking single people or unwed couples to seek contract law, we're asking them to enjoy the exact same benefits, due process and equal protection that the married experienced: apply for the exact same license and receive the exact same status.
Blood relatives: again I don't object but people who do have a logical reason for doing so, defending the rights of a third party that is only put at risk due to that circumstance.


If marriage is simply a Writ of Love -- well then we've got an awful lot of people being disenfranchised here, not withstanding the definition of "love" of course.
Is love even mentioned in marriage law? What's Love Got To Do With It?


You say it's wrong to continue disenfranchising one sect of people because you can't rectify the matter for all sects and I maintain that it's unfortunate across the board and it's wrong to elevate homosexuals above these other disenfranchised parties for the agenda du jour or the squeakier wheel model of justice.
That strikes me as an untenable position. How would you ever pass any law ever? Wouldn't all pieces of legislation be the "squeakier wheel?"


I thought we had agreed on our goal of precise verbiage. It would not be prejudiced or bigoted for one to conclude that marriage is between one man and woman as that has been a norm that transcends cultures, peoples, regions, etc...
Prejudice and bigotry are themselves "norms that transcend cultures etc." Concluding that they are such is not prejudiced, no, but adopting or endorsing them is. Supporting them based on tradition is the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.


For example, why would society be compelled to extend marital benefits to a class of people that challenge the ingrained marriage paradigm (norm) through their mental illness and related proclivities? Again, the issue is not whether or not gays can marry because of course they do every day, but whether or not they can marry one another.
Homosexuality is not a mental illness.


The more government oversight of such an organic human behavior, the more we subject our privacy to them and their whimsy. I don't like the idea and I really don't think you do either. We may have to agree to disagree here.
Marriage is voluntary, so this is not even an issue.


Government does not serve this role in marriage law and never has.
How does interracial marriage not fit that condition?


But we don't do this today, why should we tomorrow?
That sums up the appeal to tradition pretty well, doesn't it?
If we want one additional freedom, often it comes at the price of another freedom. The option to choose which freedom we would rather have is itself an important freedom.


You offered employment discrimination and the like, not me. Again, I did not accept your premise. If you're unemployed, you're provided some relief by the government. Using your logic, all unmarried people should be eligible for government-provided relief (in support of my argument though I'm more -- all or nothing), but in the case of marriage law -- this is not so.
Single people are relieved from owing the marriage tax penalty, for one thing


The relevant aspect of civil rights with regard to marriage has been the equal protection argument which I've already addressed ad nauseam.
Having to get the same license as everyone else is not an equal protection argument. Being barred from getting the same license is one.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not the same because what I suggested is that they jump through the exact same hoop as everyone else, but what you suggested is that gays have a more difficult hoop than straights.
I'm simply suggesting there be no hoop. You're saying there's no compelling reason to exclude those of the same sex from the marriage hoop and I'm saying there's no reason for the exclusionary hoop to begin with. Yes, IMO when the government drafts law to provide benefits and privileges in an attempt to certify and manipulate an otherwise entirely organic human behavior, people are unnecessarily disenfranchised. It's not just offending those of differing races and sexual orientation, but all kinds of different classes of people. That's why the government shouldn't do it. Not for straights, gays, blacks, whites, zitty people, fat people, alcoholics, or anyone else. More than anything, I'm curious about peoples' focus in this. I believe gays have a more difficult hoop than straights because they are asking society to accept a paradigm-shift with regard to marriage, but only far enough that it would include them.


You forgot shared identity (ownership, responsibility, inheritance, visitation, power of attorney, compelled testimony, etc etc etc).
All available via contract law. This is why Justice Ginsburg referred to it as jumping through hoops and I'm challenging the idea on behalf of the remainder of society. If it is jumping through hoops for gays to seek equal protection through contract law, then it is a hoop that unwed couples be expected to file marriage certification when they've been living together for 15 years. You can say; "well they obviously didn't want to marry badly enough", but that is an awfully odd litmus for equal protection.

Either way it answers your question about whether I object to incest marriage based on the "eww" reasoning. I don't.
I don't recall a concern for reproductive fitness until I brought up blood relatives and now you're advocating we test all would-be married couples for reproductive fitness which sounds like "eww" to me.

All I did was refute your claim that marriage was unique in recognizing (you called it "creating") a class different from others, and that sexuality was unique in what you called "fluidity." I never said they were analogous by other criteria you hadn't mentioned before. I'm reminded of good old Zimphire's favorite dilbert cartoon...
Our government has elevated this relationship and has defined marriage. Unfortunately, this is a condition folks have come to accept. Now you're asking them to shift their thinking to now elevate homosexual relationships likewise under the marriage definition. I maintain the problem is the government-sanctioned elevation of this class and that if all we had were civil unions out of the gate, it wouldn't be such a struggle for gays to marry.

That doesn't make any sense. We're not asking single people or unwed couples to seek contract law, we're asking them to enjoy the exact same benefits, due process and equal protection that the married experienced: apply for the exact same license and receive the exact same status.
Yes, that's what marriage is; contract law. It used to be something made available through the simple, organic act of cohabitation and now the cohabitation must be certified. It is provided an incentive for certification such that the certified condition is now elevated above uncertified conditions. I maintain the problem for gays is the proposed certification and subsequent elevation of their relationship. We've already agreed that as long as the certification exists, it should be available to any two people who wish to engage it, but this is precisely why homosexuals will continue to struggle for it as many as 47 years after interracial marriage has been legalized.

Is love even mentioned in marriage law? What's Love Got To Do With It?
No, but one man and one woman is.

That strikes me as an untenable position. How would you ever pass any law ever? Wouldn't all pieces of legislation be the "squeakier wheel?"
it's easier to satisfy equality than superiority. That's all I'm trying to say. Should gays be able to get a job? Yes. Should they be free of institutionalized maltreatment based on their sexual orientation? Yes. Should they have freedom of assembly, speech, the right to vote, just like everyone else? Yes and these are all matters for which there is overwhelming agreement across all cultures and political persuasion. Should they be allowed to marry? Well now that's a little different you see because marriage has never been "just like everyone else" and it has never been viewed as a right of an individual, but as the certification or validation of cohabitation. Should it be? Perhaps not, but then -- it's easier to satisfy equality than superiority.

Prejudice and bigotry are themselves "norms that transcend cultures etc." Concluding that they are such is not prejudiced, no, but adopting or endorsing them is. Supporting them based on tradition is the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.
It's not a fallacy, it's a government-created reality around an already established tradition. Perhaps the government should not be legislating tradition. Then we have to bicker about "whose tradition?"

Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
I know, since the 1970's in the US and 1990s in Europe. Perhaps as the generations who grew up under the understanding of mental illness as; Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors... continue to age, they will come to see the light.

How does interracial marriage not fit that condition?
What condition?

That sums up the appeal to tradition pretty well, doesn't it?
If we want one additional freedom, often it comes at the price of another freedom. The option to choose which freedom we would rather have is itself an important freedom.
If there is a marriage tradition, it was created and incentivized by the State which I maintain is the crux of the problem. Otherwise, it was just cohabitation.

Single people are relieved from owing the marriage tax penalty, for one thing
We have a progressive tax code. Low to middle income married couples actually enjoy a tax benefit, not penalty. As the household income increases, so does the tax burden. The unequal protection of our tax code.

Having to get the same license as everyone else is not an equal protection argument. Being barred from getting the same license is one.
Again with the "everyone else". No, not everyone else, but only those who meet the certifiable, cohabitation criteria. As long as there is criteria, there will be discrimination.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm simply suggesting there be no hoop. You're saying there's no compelling reason to exclude those of the same sex from the marriage hoop and I'm saying there's no reason for the exclusionary hoop to begin with.
I can't understand your argument until you spell out what exactly is the "hoop" you're suggesting be removed. The form? The ceremony? The requirement for a willing adult partner?

There has to be at least some "hoop," to ensure that all parties are willing, adult, and not already married. I suspect that is the "reason" you questioned. Maybe you have a proposal for how to accomplish this with fewer obstacles than we have now? If you're complaining about the "hoop" of needing to be willing or adult, then that's a different matter and it's about time it was addressed directly


All available via contract law. This is why Justice Ginsburg referred to it as jumping through hoops and I'm challenging the idea on behalf of the remainder of society. If it is jumping through hoops for gays to seek equal protection through contract law, then it is a hoop that unwed couples be expected to file marriage certification when they've been living together for 15 years. You can say; "well they obviously didn't want to marry badly enough", but that is an awfully odd litmus for equal protection.
The hoop for marriage is so small as to be negligible. I would say it's already as low a bar as possible.


I don't recall a concern for reproductive fitness until I brought up blood relatives and now you're advocating we test all would-be married couples for reproductive fitness which sounds like "eww" to me.
Be honest, I never advocated that. In fact I repeated again and again that I disagree. I merely said it was possible.


Our government has elevated this relationship and has defined marriage. Unfortunately, this is a condition folks have come to accept.
Are you claiming that most people don't support statutory marriage, they merely "accept" it?


Yes, that's what marriage is; contract law. It used to be something made available through the simple, organic act of cohabitation and now the cohabitation must be certified. It is provided an incentive for certification such that the certified condition is now elevated above uncertified conditions. I maintain the problem for gays is the proposed certification and subsequent elevation of their relationship.
I think this reasoning is faulty, because common-law marriage is still the case in 9 states and the district of columbia, but this hasn't solved gays' problem there. In certain of those states, gay marriage was independently legalized (Iowa and DC come to mind), but the fact that it wasn't automatic contradicts your argument (not to mention that the other states haven't legalized gay marriage).


No, but one man and one woman is.
That's why people have a basis to complain about "one man and one woman" but you have no basis to complain about "love"


it's easier to satisfy equality than superiority. That's all I'm trying to say. Should gays be able to get a job? Yes. Should they be free of institutionalized maltreatment based on their sexual orientation? Yes. Should they have freedom of assembly, speech, the right to vote, just like everyone else? Yes and these are all matters for which there is overwhelming agreement across all cultures and political persuasion.
You must be using a very limited set of "all cultures"


Should they be allowed to marry? Well now that's a little different you see because marriage has never been "just like everyone else" and it has never been viewed as a right of an individual, but as the certification or validation of cohabitation. Should it be? Perhaps not, but then -- it's easier to satisfy equality than superiority.
How does this argument not also support bans on interracial marriage?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Government's role is to protect those who can't protect themselves (eg market failure).
Government does not serve this role in marriage law and never has.
How does interracial marriage not fit that condition?
What condition?
The role of protecting those from abuse who are unable to protect themselves.
Also, the government would intervene if someone was being harmed by a marriage, such as being included without their consent.


Again with the "everyone else". No, not everyone else, but only those who meet the certifiable, cohabitation criteria.
Cohabitation is not a criterion for statutory marriage. In that respect, statutory marriage is more lenient than common-law marriage.


As long as there is criteria, there will be discrimination.
"Discrimination" can imply fair or unfair differentiation. I sense that you are using it to mean the unfair kind. But then your statement would not be true, because there can be fair criteria for differentiation, such as requiring informed consent, and requiring that a person be participating in only one marriage at the same time.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2013, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I can't understand your argument until you spell out what exactly is the "hoop" you're suggesting be removed. The form? The ceremony? The requirement for a willing adult partner?

There has to be at least some "hoop," to ensure that all parties are willing, adult, and not already married. I suspect that is the "reason" you questioned. Maybe you have a proposal for how to accomplish this with fewer obstacles than we have now? If you're complaining about the "hoop" of needing to be willing or adult, then that's a different matter and it's about time it was addressed directly
You bring up a good point. Even if we were to return to a time when the government simply acknowledged the fact that man and woman have lived together a certain number of years under "common law", common law can and would likely still be discriminatory. Truth be told, the only way to satisfy all of our criteria is to return to what I had suggested in the first place; privatize marriage and model the arrangement in much the same way as a simple partnership or business contract where the people involved set the terms of their relationship. Any two single people not in love can enter into the partnership, any two people in love can opt into the partnership, blood relatives can enter into the partnership, two people of the same sex can enter into the partnership, etc... If it's marriage you seek, you can seek it through other channels be it the church or some other official ceremony. The government would only grant civil unions to any two people who wish to file their contract.

This wouldn't eliminate the "hoop" of course, but I do think it puts more control of the arrangement into the hands of the parties involved, correctly emphasizes that marriage is what you and I make it - not what the government makes it, doesn't involve blood tests or gene therapy or discrimination of any sort nor does it attempt to elevate one class above another. You set the terms of the partnership and the government would enforce it as it does under contract law.

The hoop for marriage is so small as to be negligible. I would say it's already as low a bar as possible.
Good point.

Be honest, I never advocated that. In fact I repeated again and again that I disagree. I merely said it was possible.
I honestly thought you had, Uncle. That's why I challenged the idea twice. This only came up while discussing blood-relative marriage.

Are you claiming that most people don't support statutory marriage, they merely "accept" it?
They've accepted that government-sanctioning of the relationship legitimizes or validates it and I think this is unfortunate and causes the sluggishness for which society seeks to validate or legitimize SSM. Go on -- "make her an honest woman"... that sort of thinking.

I think this reasoning is faulty, because common-law marriage is still the case in 9 states and the district of columbia, but this hasn't solved gays' problem there. In certain of those states, gay marriage was independently legalized (Iowa and DC come to mind), but the fact that it wasn't automatic contradicts your argument (not to mention that the other states haven't legalized gay marriage).
I'll admit it's difficult to make such a determination as you would find a similar makeup of distaste for SS unions through SS union bans within the States that acknowledge common-law as you'll find in the States overall, but with only a handful of States acknowledging common-law marriage, it can still be argued as the new normal as opposed to prior to the early 1900s when common-law marriage was the norm. I'll concede on this as well because I cannot prove that had common law marriage remained the norm, society would be more open to SS unions.

That's why people have a basis to complain about "one man and one woman" but you have no basis to complain about "love"
I had originally made the statement to explicitly state that love has nothing to do with it. It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.

You must be using a very limited set of "all cultures"
I just meant that in regions of the globe where same-sex marriage is a subject of debate as it is in the US, we're not debating their protections with regard to any other civil matter. For example, they may not be debating same-sex unions in Iran, but then -- they essentially deny homosexuality altogether and/or kill the ones they've identified.

How does this argument not also support bans on interracial marriage?
There is no challenge to the definition of marriage, it's still one man and one woman. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman. SSM challenges the paradigm in such a way that it is 47 years behind interracial marriage. Do you have some other reason why this is so?
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2013, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Truth be told, the only way to satisfy all of our criteria is to return to what I had suggested in the first place; privatize marriage and model the arrangement in much the same way as a simple partnership or business contract where the people involved set the terms of their relationship. ... The government would only grant civil unions to any two people who wish to file their contract.
I don't see why calling that thing "marriage" would fail to satisfy all of our criteria.


There is no challenge to the definition of marriage, it's still one man and one woman. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman.
That's a tautology. If your definition of marriage was "one man and one woman of the same race who seek a shared public identity," then interracial marriage would also challenge "the definition of marriage." And if your definition of marriage is "two willing adults who seek a shared public identity" then none of the groups in the current debate are challenging the definition. If your definition of marriage is "willing adults who seek a shared public identity" then the groups in what I imagine the next generation's debate (plural marriage) will also be included without challenging the definition of marriage. This line of reasoning is a tautology because the definition is both premise and conclusion.


SSM challenges the paradigm in such a way that it is 47 years behind interracial marriage. Do you have some other reason why this is so?
You mean besides prejudice?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2013, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't see why calling that thing "marriage" would fail to satisfy all of our criteria.
Next up, military. I'd like to get a tax break for arming and training every member in my family and while calling it military would satisfy a bunch of criteria, I'm probably asking a lot and my opponents may not be able to prove why. Guns are bad? I don't know, lack of respect for them and yourself may be. Marriage? Who knows what that is, but the SCOTUS will not want to impose a definition of it either in its current form or an expanded form. That's how it can both uphold Prop 8 and strike down the most contentious aspects of DOMA. I suppose we could expand definitions of words to solve problems or meet criteria, but I think a much neater solution begins by taking a look at why we're (the collective resource) even bothering. The only justification and IMO, extent of power granted to the government for acknowledging formal, personal unions is the civil census. More precisely, civil unions. If you want to call it marriage, call it marriage -- that's not something the government can grant or take away.

That's a tautology. If your definition of marriage was "one man and one woman of the same race who seek a shared public identity," then interracial marriage would also challenge "the definition of marriage." And if your definition of marriage is "two willing adults who seek a shared public identity" then none of the groups in the current debate are challenging the definition. If your definition of marriage is "willing adults who seek a shared public identity" then the groups in what I imagine the next generation's debate (plural marriage) will also be included without challenging the definition of marriage. This line of reasoning is a tautology because the definition is both premise and conclusion.
When you whittle away all the ambiguity in the above statement, you're still down to the root of one man-one woman; a normative definition that transcends race, religion, and culture. I don't think prejudice adequately explains why those of the same-sex are not allowed to marry, a full 47 years after the civil rights movement and counting. It is no more prejudicial to conclude that marriage means a formal union of one man and one woman than it is to conclude upon the definition of man or woman.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2013, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Next up, military. I'd like to get a tax break for arming and training every member in my family and while calling it military would satisfy a bunch of criteria, I'm probably asking a lot and my opponents may not be able to prove why.
I don't see why you would get any more opposition than the groups on this list that are private and use the word "military" and are tax advantaged
List of United States military schools and academies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When you whittle away all the ambiguity in the above statement, you're still down to the root of one man-one woman; a normative definition that transcends race, religion, and culture. I don't think prejudice adequately explains why those of the same-sex are not allowed to marry, a full 47 years after the civil rights movement and counting. It is no more prejudicial to conclude that marriage means a formal union of one man and one woman than it is to conclude upon the definition of man or woman.
Again, that logic would also support racism. To identify racism is not (necessarily) prejudiced, but as soon as you endorse it, even by the reasoning that everyone else does it, that's when it becomes prejudiced.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2013, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't see why you would get any more opposition than the groups on this list that are private and use the word "military" and are tax advantaged
List of United States military schools and academies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That wasn't my example. You've found alternate examples and that's a start, but that wasn't my example and therefore is not military, fully realized. Besides, the point was we could expand definitions of words to solve problems or meet criteria, but I think a much neater solution begins by taking a look at why we're (the collective resource) even bothering. The only justification and IMO, extent of power granted to the government for acknowledging formal, personal unions is the civil census. More precisely, civil unions. If you want to call it marriage, call it marriage.

Again, that logic would also support racism. To identify racism is not (necessarily) prejudiced, but as soon as you endorse it, even by the reasoning that everyone else does it, that's when it becomes prejudiced.
And I think liberal use of the term racism marginalizes its distasteful nature and is more often used as a bully tactic to get people's thinking "in line". The term marriage has a definition that has been affirmed through practical application from time immemorial and transcends race, religion, and culture. Again, I don't think prejudice or racism adequately explains why those of the same-sex are not allowed to marry, a full 47 years after the civil rights movement and counting. It is no more prejudicial to conclude that marriage means a formal union of one man and one woman than it is to conclude upon the definition of man or woman. You can seek to stretch definitions of words and continue to watch large segments of the population struggle for equal protection or you can challenge the government's place in even attempting to adjudicate such matters.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2013, 08:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That wasn't my example. You've found alternate examples and that's a start, but that wasn't my example
I didn't say it was, just like your example was not the same as that to which you responded using it. I said that there's no indication that the reaction would be different.


The only justification and IMO, extent of power granted to the government for acknowledging formal, personal unions is the civil census.
It seems to me that property rights (shared ownership and responsibility) and privacy rights (visitation, attorney, etc) are more important, and not addressed by census taking.


And I think liberal use of the term racism marginalizes its distasteful nature and is more often used as a bully tactic to get people's thinking "in line".
We do need something to use as a yardstick, against which to test the soundness of proposed reasoning. What would you rather we use for that?


The term marriage has a definition that has been affirmed through practical application from time immemorial and transcends race, religion, and culture.
The fact that something has been going on for a long time doesn't tell us anything about whether it is prejudiced or unjust.


It is no more prejudicial to conclude that marriage means a formal union of one man and one woman than it is to conclude upon the definition of man or woman.
"Conclude upon?" It would not be prejudicial to identify that definition as historical, but to "conclude upon" as in decide to keep it, yes that is prejudice. Any prejudice can be historical, and most are.


You can seek to stretch definitions of words and continue to watch large segments of the population struggle for equal protection or you can challenge the government's place in even attempting to adjudicate such matters.
Both paths can lead to justice. We've seen the former path succeed more times in our history than the latter.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2013, 10:09 AM
 
Did I miss something or has ebuddy not responded to my post?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2013, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think you're wrong. Consider the "trick" of giving away free condoms. There is no enforcing the standard that people who take free condoms have to use them for safe sex. This lack of enforcement doesn't undermine the argument that if more people ultimately do use the condoms as intended, then the "trick" must be working.



Well, he's arguing that it's not.



Without a precedent of making other changes (not counting rejection of change, like rejecting gays), it's easy for him to give any number. It's harder to find fault with inaction than with action.



I am just inferring. As I remember it (I listened on cspan radio), Scalia was the one who brought up adoption, sounding like he thought he was the smartest guy in the room, and only then was it pointed out that the case was about CA where gay adoption was already legal anyhow, and it seemed to me that Cooper would have rather the topic of adoption was never raised at all because he already knew that that fact made it a loser argument. I think Cooper only mentioned it when pressed about it.



I don't see why he wouldn't just stick to what I described. IVF, surrogate and other fertility technology can be used by biological parents or adoptive ones, and he could simply maintain that biological is always better, and the methods used to get there are irrelevant. Personally I'm not convinced that's true, but I certainly can't prove that it's false.



The same is undoubtedly true of straight adoptions, however many believe that they would be even better off if they could somehow be with their bio-parents.



Obviously gay couples must not need marriage in order to adopt, given that CA has gay adoption but not gay marriage. So admitting the marginal value of gay adoption over foster care doesn't require him to admit any value for gay marriage, nor does it require him to deny that straight married parents (especially biological parents) are even more better than gay adoptive parents.
I feel like this has boiled down to a bunch of "nu-uh"s. Yes, obviously the guy could have just been out and out contrarian, but the longer this goes the less substantive reasoning I'm seeing given. Which is kind of the point.

Anyway, this has kind of digressed from your original point. Maybe you're right that his point is rational, but I lack either the education or the capability to see how.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2013, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I didn't say it was, just like your example was not the same as that to which you responded using it. I said that there's no indication that the reaction would be different.
I disagree, particularly in this political climate.

It seems to me that property rights (shared ownership and responsibility) and privacy rights (visitation, attorney, etc) are more important, and not addressed by census taking.
I see no reason why these wouldn't continue to be an integral part of the union. Contract law can serve each of the above purposes and so should civil unions.

We do need something to use as a yardstick, against which to test the soundness of proposed reasoning. What would you rather we use for that?

The fact that something has been going on for a long time doesn't tell us anything about whether it is prejudiced or unjust.

"Conclude upon?" It would not be prejudicial to identify that definition as historical, but to "conclude upon" as in decide to keep it, yes that is prejudice. Any prejudice can be historical, and most are.
Yes, I'm saying it's difficult to expand the definition of marriage just enough to include SSM without opening the term to something so ambiguous as to include all manner of relationships we've discussed here. I cannot accept that it is prejudice however as the definition of marriage is not bereft of reason or actual experience. It has been elevated by society and encompasses the experience of hundreds of years of practical application.

Both paths can lead to justice. We've seen the former path succeed more times in our history than the latter.
I've maintained that this is different as a civil rights issue because homosexuals are a unique class and marriage is a unique right. I still think my solution is more elegant and with the proper delivery politically, could address the "definitions of words" hangup while satisfying the equal protection criteria. But there's also a secret hope of mine in this that I think could produce a greater good. I want people to understand that they make their marriage, not a government. You don't make someone honest by certifying the relationship, you make them honest by treating them with respect and and in this case, monogamy. I think marriage has been made a sham by heterosexuals and it's costing society in parentless children. I want this to be a wake-up call. It's all you.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2013, 10:25 AM
 
Same-sex marriage legalised - Story - Politics - 3 News

MPs voted 77-44 in favour of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, introduced last year from the private member's ballot.
It makes New Zealand the 13th country in the world – and the first in the Asia-Pacific region – to legalise same-sex marriage.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2013, 09:12 AM
 
Apologies Dakar -- I saw this post and forgot to get back to you. My interest is waning as new news hits the wires, but you bring up some good points that should be acknowledged. I don't feel like digging back and forth for context, but will address this from where we are...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That was not the case that was brought to the court, though.
For reasons clearly outlined – individual rights trump states rights. The point of contention isn't on the latter, it's on the former.
Very true. This doesn't mean the court cannot broaden the scope or implications by ruling on DOMA and/or Prop 8. If it addresses DOMA by attempting to redefine marriage strictly in the context of an individual right, it must consider the implications. The implications are all manner of relationships we've discussed in this thread. These factors make the implications weightier and I believe compels the court to avoid imposing a definition. Again, I believe SCOTUS will strike down the language in DOMA which defines marriage, but will not impose another definition on the States. i.e. The individual rights conundrum is not as clear-cut and I maintain this is because of the uniqueness of marriage itself and the obscure class seeking it. Blacks and whites sought to marry under an existing institution; marriage. Gays seeking to marry can marry under the existing institution. Those of the same sex wishing to marry are asking for a different institution, a modified institution, or a new institution having nothing to do with their sexual orientation as this had never been a determinant in marriage certification. The problem is not homosexuals, the problem is marriage.

Based on a rather unique interpretation of marriage, though, right? As argued in front of the court, I don't see how it would be wrong.
Those of the same sex wishing to marry are asking for a paradigm-shift in thinking, but only far enough to fit them under the umbrella.

I agree that if the SCOTUS doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, the odds of a favorable ruling drop dramatically.
They've already been deemed a protected class such that hate crimes legislation would apply to them and are included in all other manner of legislative language around protections and individual rights. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's not the stretch. There is no elegant way to redefine marriage in such a way that it would only include those of the same sex without including all manner of relationships discussed in this thread. It would be as compelled to question the government's role in committed bonds as it would in defining what those bonds should look like. Remember, this is an established institution. Redefining marriage just enough to include SSM is the challenge.

This has been pulled out ad nauseum, but if the folks in Cali decided to constitutionally ban interracial marriage would this be ok?
First -- they wouldn't and second, homosexuality is more fluid than race and gender in that there is a psychosocial/environmental component to their class, but it's more complicated than that. Homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry those of the same sex. In this regard it's not even about homosexuals, but about the established institution of marriage itself. It will take a long time for those of the same sex to marry because that imposes a new definition of marriage in spite of the number of laws considering sexual orientation a protected class.

What I'm reading is, in the eyes of the law, interracial marriage was not as controversial as it was socially. Prior to civil rights, to paraphrase you, "Folks didn't regard blacks as equals in the traditional sense of equality and protection." That feeling had not changed dramatically with regards to society yet in the eyes of the law...
The ask for interracial marriage is different than the ask for same sex marriage. There doesn't have to be a dramatic acceptance, but your example (Loving v Virginia) came three years after landmark civil rights legislation for blacks. A ban on interracial marriage was to discourage race-mixing. Once you've determined that black people are to be equal to white people in all enforceable facets of society, it is not a stretch to allow race-mixing. A homosexual can marry a straight person and there have never been bans that would discourage sexual orientation mixing. What you're asking for is a redefinition of marriage. While there has been a great increase in the acceptance of gays in society, society is not compelled to therefore redefine the institution of marriage. Again, homosexuals aren't the problem, the institution of marriage is.

I'm not sure where you're getting that I think June's ruling is a foregone conclusion. I think history's take on gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. It's not like the SCOTUS hasn't been on the wrong side of history before.
This doesn't mean their rulings are always on the wrong side of history.

What is a Great Experiment? Gay marriage? Does it have some great implications I'm not aware of? (Totally serious, BTW. I don't see any implication gay marriage could have that straight marriage isn't already doing – aside from tacit government approval of homosexuality which already exists as far as discrimination in every other area)
The Great Experiment is the distribution of powers between Federal and State allowing for a multitude of practices throughout the enumerated states giving way to best practice. Again, homosexuals can marry. The question is whether or not society should redefine marriage just enough to include those of the same sex.

Exactly. There is the 14th to consider.
And yet marriage was different no? The 14th Amendment was adopted in the 1860's.

Or the word. Which was debated before the SCOTUS as being meaningful. Contractual partnership also strikes me separate but unequal (more difficult)
Not if they apply to everyone.

How is it a social issue? Because people don't like it? Wasn't integration a social issue?
Marriage, not acceptance of gays or blacks. Are you asking whether or not those of varying sexual orientation can marry? No. There is no discrimination of sexual orientation in marriage. You're asking why those of the same sex cannot marry. That's different. It's not the existing institution of marriage.

I haven't seen any reasoning for why we have state sponsored marriage that isn't contradicted by exceptions that exist within the current straight demographics. The SCOTUS arguments reaffirmed this for me.
I'd stop at the first half of the question which is the issue for me. I've not seen any reasoning for why we have state-sponsored marriage... period. Again, in this homosexuals are not the problem because they can marry -- marriage is the problem.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2013, 11:37 AM
 
I promise ebuddy, I'll respond eventually. PL is low priority right now, unfortunately.

---

Normally I wouldn't post this because – What's the big deal? But the reaction, to me, perfectly illustrates why coming out is still so arduous for some.

NBA player Jason Collins says he is gay - The Magazine - SI.com
I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.
The first relative I came out to was my aunt Teri, a superior court judge in San Francisco. Her reaction surprised me. "I've known you were gay for years," she said. From that moment on I was comfortable in my own skin. In her presence I ignored my censor button for the first time. She gave me support. The relief I felt was a sweet release.
I didn't come out to my brother until last summer. His reaction to my breakfast revelation was radically different from Aunt Teri's. He was downright astounded. He never suspected. So much for twin telepathy. But by dinner that night, he was full of brotherly love. For the first time in our lives, he wanted to step in and protect me.
Call me cynical, but I don't count this as the first openly gay active player yet – he'll need to get signed by a team first. And as an aging back-up center with limited skills and declining athleticism, I also feel the timing could be indicative of a strategy to set himself apart from other looking to be signed. Certainly a struggling franchise would welcome the free PR from signing him.

So essentially, it looks like much ado about nothing for the time being, until...
ESPN's Chris Broussard Calls Homosexuality a Sin During Jason Collins Segment (Video) - The Hollywood Reporter
"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that's a sin," said Broussard, comparing homosexuality to any other sex outside of marriage. "If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."
Is Broussard a bad person for thinking this – that's up to you to decide. But I do think he's a bad person for saying it when his opinion is irrelevant to his job of reporting basketball related news. Further, it illustrates why coming out is as seen as a chore. Twenty-four hours before, Jason Collins didn't have people claiming on national media that he was pretty much going to hell. What a ****ing drag.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2013, 09:50 AM
 
RI Now 10th State to Allow Gay Marriage - ABC News

Ten U.S. states — including a long uninterrupted swath from New York to Maine — now allow gay and lesbian couples to marry now that gay marriage legislation has been signed into law in heavily Catholic Rhode Island.

Gays, lesbians, their friends and families erupted into cheers Thursday following a final 56-15 vote in the Rhode Island House, and then again an hour later when Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed the bill into law on the Statehouse steps.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2013, 10:21 AM
 
I'm wondering which will be the first state in "The South" to allow same-sex civil unions... My bet is Virginia.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2013, 10:34 AM
 
I hope it's Mississippi. Just to defy stereotypes.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2013, 10:49 AM
 
TN won't allow SS marriage, due to a state constitutional amendment, but civil unions are being discussed (and not just for gays, but for everyone). Meaning, there would be marriage and civil unions, but strictly speaking, in the eyes of the law, they're all civil unions. I'm proud of that, I mentioned the idea to the state legislators for my district a while back and they're now running with it. It won't pass this year, or likely even the next, but the seed has been planted.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2013, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and not just for gays, but for everyone
So, no "must have buttsex" clause.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2013, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, no "must have buttsex" clause.
I've always thought that should be optional, but it comes down to who's pitching and catching.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2013, 03:12 AM
 
Well, if we're being even remotely serious, there are of course plenty of gay couples where there's no buttsex at all. I'm just entertained by the idea of:

1) Buttsex dependent liberty

2) Proving to Uncle Sam how light your loafers are
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2013, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, if we're being even remotely serious,
Not really. I'm just glad my state seems to be getting out of the marriage business.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2013, 08:35 AM
 
Minnesota governor signs same-sex marriage bill - CBS News

Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday signed a bill making same-sex marriage legal in Minnesota, the 12th state to take the step, as thousands of onlookers cheered.
The push for same-sex marriage was a rapid turnabout from just six months ago, when same-sex marriage supporters had to mobilize to turn back a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage. Minnesota already had such a law, but an amendment would have been harder to undo.

But voters rejected the amendment, and the forces that organized to defeat it soon turned their attention to legalizing same-sex marriage. Democrats' takeover of the Legislature in the November election aided their cause.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2013, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm just glad my state seems to be getting out of the marriage business.
They're not. They're just pretending they are by calling it something else.

Once we've pointlessly renamed marriage as civil union, do we have to change all the other terms too? Are the civil-unioned allowed to use the word divorce, or do we invent a pointless term like "civil union dissolution." Do we say "We're getting dissolutioned" or "we're getting dissolved?" Or maybe "disunioned?"

Are the civil-unioned allowed to use the terms husband and wife, or do they have to invent pointless civil union analogues like "male spouse" and female spouse"? Oh wait, they probably can't use the word "spouse" either! We're gonna have to go with "male civil union participant" and "female civil union participant." Maybe M-CUP and F-CUP for short?

Are they allowed to use the words wedding, widow, bride, groom, best man, maid of honour, and so on? I mean, if we're protecting the all-mighty sacredness of the word marriage, certainly these other words are holy and sacred too!

Since this is so fncking important, we should get these details right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2013, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's an amazing shift in a year, impressive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2013, 07:22 PM
 
If you oppose gays rights and gay marriage, you are an apologist for injustice and you bear some of the guilt for these latest examples of injustice:

Republican Texas judge orders lesbian couple to live apart or lose children | The Raw Story

Florida teen fights expulsion and criminal charges for same sex relationship - West Palm Beach Top News | Examiner.com

C'mon conservatives, tell me again about "judicial activism." We all need a good laugh.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; May 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 04:02 PM
 
The Florida case looks more like statutory rape (she's 18 and her girlfriend was 15), at least from a legal POV.

She was charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12 – 16 years of age.
Countless 18 y/o guys have been charged with that, under those circumstances, and have had to live with the consequences.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 08:21 AM
 
You don't think it's strange that a 17 and 15 year old carrying on a sexual relationship is legal, then the calendar switches over a single day and it now magically becomes rape? Do you think that's how the law is supposed to work, or is this just the result of an idiot conservative judge? 'Cause that's how I see it.

And what makes this story infuriating is not just how the law is being applied, but how the other girl's parents, the school, the prosecutor, and the judge have all basically tried to ruin this young woman without a guilty verdict. And they are all enablers of the bullying and abuse this young woman now faces from her peers at school.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 08:43 AM
 
How dopey our consent laws are is another matter entirely.

As an 18-year-old, not only could I have been convicted on statutory rape, they probably could have nailed me on federal kidnapping charges.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2013, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How dopey our consent laws are is another matter entirely.

As an 18-year-old, not only could I have been convicted on statutory rape, they probably could have nailed me on federal kidnapping charges.
I grew up with two who were convicted and now they're labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. One deserved to be convicted, he was 19 and she was 14, and a rather immature 14, at that. The other didn't, IMO, he was 18 and she was 15, nearly 16. However, she was a deputy's daughter and the guy wasn't shown any leniency at all.

I'm not saying I agree, but it's the law and it happens, if you're legally an adult and want to avoid jail, date girls who are at least old enough to drive a car. It's that simple. Actually, this legitimizes same sex relations to a degree, showing that statutory rape applies to them as well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2013, 01:39 PM
 
14 and 19 is probably too far, but 18 and 15 isn't.

Maybe that's self-serving on my part. I'll let other people judge.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 11:25 AM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
To some, yes, to others, no. There's no big "homo network" where they all decided to try and destroy marriage, but there's always going to be a few idiots who are determined to pee in the pool, just because they can.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 02:39 PM
 
In case anyone has been paying attention, the Gang of 8 Dems caved into pressure from the GOP on the Uniting America's Family Act. The Dems have been promising they would include language to allow bi-national couples immigration rights but have decided it's not an important enough issue. Dear gays, you're not "valuable" enough to be included in immigration reform.

Honestly, I never had that much hope UAFA would ever become law. My hope is on DOMA. In theory once it's struck down I should be able to sponsor my partner for a K-1 fiancé visa. Still no guarantee however that we'll be successful. Immigration decisions are arbitrary at best and a single person having a bad day can ruin your entire life.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Gays are not a monolithic "pink mafia" that agree on everything. Duh.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 02:12 AM
 
I more or less agree, or at least sympathize, with where she's coming from. The title of the clip is mashing half of two separate points together.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I grew up with two who were convicted and now they're labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. One deserved to be convicted, he was 19 and she was 14, and a rather immature 14, at that. The other didn't, IMO, he was 18 and she was 15, nearly 16. However, she was a deputy's daughter and the guy wasn't shown any leniency at all.

I'm not saying I agree, but it's the law and it happens, if you're legally an adult and want to avoid jail, date girls who are at least old enough to drive a car. It's that simple. Actually, this legitimizes same sex relations to a degree, showing that statutory rape applies to them as well.
You don't seem to understand the issue, at all.

The relationship was completely legal when it began. This was not an "adult" targeting a minor. They were both minors when it all began. Your comparisons are irrelevant.

And you haven't acknowledged that the only reason this prosecution is happening is because the parents of the other girl are a couple of contemptible bigots who resent the fact that their own daughter won't listen to them, so they are making the other girl suffer. They are happily making their own daughter miserable because of their idiotic anti-gay bias. And the courts and the school have jumped to support them because, hey, it's Florida, where idiots are in charge.

BTW, the girl being charged has chosen to stand her ground, and turned down a plea offer.

Kaitlyn Hunt Refuses Plea Deal: Gay Teen Charged Over Underage Relationship Will Appear In Court
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist View Post
In case anyone has been paying attention, the Gang of 8 Dems caved into pressure from the GOP on the Uniting America's Family Act. The Dems have been promising they would include language to allow bi-national couples immigration rights but have decided it's not an important enough issue. Dear gays, you're not "valuable" enough to be included in immigration reform.

Honestly, I never had that much hope UAFA would ever become law. My hope is on DOMA. In theory once it's struck down I should be able to sponsor my partner for a K-1 fiancé visa. Still no guarantee however that we'll be successful. Immigration decisions are arbitrary at best and a single person having a bad day can ruin your entire life.
I'm sorry you're suffering thru this because of your fellow countrymen.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2