|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluecat48 writes:
What? I've propose a level playing field for gays and striaghts regarding civil unions. If gays can't handle it then they're ones who need to explain why they are disadvantaged by taking the word "marriage" out of the law. What you and others are saying is that straight "marriage" somehow harms gays. Taz writes:
Most likely because there is none. As I have said many many times now, not all opinions are equal. Rahvin's opinion in this case is more valid than the opinions of your precious heartland people. Why? Because he's been able to support his opinion whereas these heartland people haven't been able to support their opinion. We still haven't heard a single response explaining why gay marriage would ruin straight marriage. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Larni writes:
And you're not bigoted against those who want to preserve "marriage" for couples of opposite sexes? Maybe you'd like to preserve the Hershey Highway for gay couples only? Please tell me how you decide who is a bigot and who isn't. Far as I can tell all we have that separates us is opinionation. There is no moral authority on this issue that can settle the matter conclusively. All we have is oponionation, the kind we use to decise how to vote. Got a better arrangement? Hootmon writes:
I can honestly say that it would not bother me at all. I would be more concerned if he was born a bigot. Would you want any of your children to turn out gay? Be honest. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : common edit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
What piffle. What ignoring of the central point.
How many "non-desirable family units" would there need to be to bring that about? Your talk of extinction is just science fiction, only without the science. Just because you find someone else's family undesirable, doesn't mean that they are going to have a negative affect upon society. You are going to have to demonstrate that if you want to base your shoddy argument upon it. How exactly will this projected extinction take place? Go back and read what the State is trying to achieve and how it sets about achieving it. The reason for it doing as it does is because it is not extinction-minded but survival-of-the-fittest minded. It is not a human right to receive the benefit of incentives for which you do not qualify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
There is no need for the State to micro-manage to the extent you suggest in order that overall State goals be achieved. Excuse me? How does simply applying the law equally to all parties and no longer considering gender micromanaging?! It seems to me the practice of restricting marriage by gender is the option that increases the red tape, iano. But it's irrelevant: the Constitution of the US guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is non-negotiable. It means there are two options: either remove marriage as a legal concern and make it an entirely private matter withotu state recognition, or give homosexuals the right to marry each other. There are no other options that satisfy the Constitution. Since the former is almost universally opposed, carries a huge set of legal consequences for laws that refer specifically to marriage (like the tax code), and generally is cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's unlikely in the extreme. Gay marriage then becomes the wiser option.
Some people not being able to have kids won't affect the overall result. Some people not wanting to won't either. If many people decide they don't want kids then the state can add more inducement to do so. If there are too many kids then the State can add disincentive (the one child policy in China being an case in point) What should be plain as the nose on your face is that the State will seek to encourage stable family platforms of a type which produce children and rear them to adulthood. And the means whereby it will do so is to attach rights and privileges and benefits to the desired family unit and/or disincentivise non-desirable family units. To suppose the State would do otherwise (however you read US law) is to suppose a State wishing extinction upon itself. You don't know the US very well then, iano. Marriage here has nothing whatsoever to do with children inherantly. There is no requirement or even encouragement in the marriage contract for having children. Once again, this retarded argument carries no weight in a legal system where people who don't want children, sterile couples, couples past senility/menopause, convicted felons, child molesters, murderers, rapists, and all manner of others are allowed to be married. Obviously a "household that encourages childbearing" has nothing to do with marriage in the United States. Aside from that, gay couples even now have children - they simply use artificial insemination or adoption or other methods to form their family unit, and it has been solidly shown that children raised by gay couples are exactly the same as children raised by straight couples. The "think of the children" argument is contradicted by facts, iano. But I can' stress this enough: The Constitution of teh United Statres guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia. Feel free to look it up - the reasons gay marriage must be legalized are the exact same reasons that interracial marriage had to be legalized. It has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with "family units," nothing to do with whether bigots like Hoot get all squicked out when they see two men (or a white woman and black man) kissing, and everything to do with equal treatment under the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
At the time, 90% of the population of the great state of California voted to have interracial marriage banned. It was the Cali surpreme court at the time that overturned the "will of the people" and announced the interracial marriage ban as unconstitutional. This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia. I just find it funny that some people at the time also used the "think of the children" argument like iano against interracial marriage. At the time, children of mix races were treated worse than even black children. Orphaned children of mix races were labeled unadoptable. And because of this, people argued that we shouldn't allow interracial couples to marry and have children so to save their children from a lifetime of pain. Of course this was just a bullshit excuse to mask their bigotry. Iano's "think of the children" argument is also a bullshit excuse for his bigotry. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
First off: I answered the question, I was honest. Any retort? Or are you going to agree that some people don't hold your devisive bigotted views?
Secondly:
Hootmon writes: Please tell me how you decide who is a bigot and who isn't. I advocate equality between a gay couple and a straight couple. You stipulate there should be no equality because.....? So, equality vs bigotry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
To compare the opposition to “gay marriage” to racial bigotry is to compare Bugs Bunny to Humphrey Bogart. There is nothing bigoted about opposing the legalization of “gay marriage,” and those who say there is are making cartoon characters out of themselves. Get real! There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married. Gay people already have all the rights that I have. They are free to choose, just like me. There is no issue here that matters enough to bother the law with it. But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip. But I can' stress this enough: The Constitution of teh United Statres guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia. Feel free to look it up - the reasons gay marriage must be legalized are the exact same reasons that interracial marriage had to be legalized. It has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with "family units," nothing to do with whether bigots like Hoot get all squicked out when they see two men (or a white woman and black man) kissing, and everything to do with equal treatment under the law. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I see. So in your world, we're all just a bunch of lab rats, running through our lives, being manipulated by the state to achieve what the state thinks is the best outcome. How revolting. Of course, your bizarre conception of the country as being some kind of marionette show with Uncle Sam pulling our strings suffers from the same flaw as every other claim that gay marriage will harm/destroy/affect heterosexual marriage in any way. How will allowing gay marriage change what the state is trying to encourage? All the same laws will still be in place, eliciting the same Pavlovian responses in people that you seem to think that they will. It won't change any of that at all. It will just mean that a few more people will be allowed to be in those kinds of relationships as well.
quote: Even assuming that your fantastic idea has any germ of truth behind it, as I mentioned upthread, the question as far as childraising is concerned isn't which is better, gay or hetero parents. As you yourself acknowledge, gay couples are going to raise children. Instead, the question is, which is better for children, married gay parents or non-marriage gay parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics says married in this report.
quote: What's more, you are demonstrably wrong in your assumption that gay couples cannot introduce new lab rats into the maze, ummm, I mean produce children. Take the example of Melissa Etheridge. She has been in two different relationships which have so far produced four children.
quote: Please explain how allowing gay marriage would undermine this goal. I'm 100% sincere. I don't understand. I don't see it. Are you worried that people will leave hetero marriages in droves and flock to those newfangled gay marriages? What are you worried about? What difference will it make? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
To compare the opposition to “gay marriage” to racial bigotry is to compare Bugs Bunny to Humphrey Bogart. Mmmm hmmmm.
quote: Now, let's change just a couple of words:
quote: It's the same goddamned argument, Hoot. "It's an abomination before god!" "It makes me feel icky!" "It's not the traditional definition of marriage!" "The majority opposes it!" "Think of the children!" "They're forcing their views on us!" "They're still free to marry someone of the (same race/opposite gender) just like everyone else!" They're all the same goddamned bigoted arguments, Hoot. Every last one. It's exactly the same.
There is nothing bigoted about opposing the legalization of “gay marriage,” and those who say there is are making cartoon characters out of themselves. Bigots rarely see themselves as bigots.
Get real! There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all. There is, however, a very important part that guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Once again: the same arguments for and against interracial marriage apply to homosexual marriage. There is no difference whatsoever.
Gay people already have all the rights that I have. They are free to choose, just like me. There is no issue here that matters enough to bother the law with it. "They're free to marry someone of the (oppostite gender/same race) just like me!" See? It's the same bigoted argument as was used against interracial marriage.
But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip. For some reason it's bigots like you who refuse to let people make their own decisions - you want to deny them the right to make a very important decision, and you have no rational or legal argument of any value. You're the comical one, Hoot. You can't even rationally support an argument beyond "Oh yeah? Well you're a bigot too! NYA NYA!!!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
There is, however, a very important part that guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens.
But we already have that. There is nothing I can do legally that a gay person can't. And don't give me the "Gays can't marry who they love" argument. If I loved two women and can only marry one a a time. Am I hollering for relief from such preposterous bigotry? Come on! We already are exactly equal under the law. ”Hm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
But we already have that. There is nothing I can do legally that a gay person can't. And don't give me the "Gays can't marry who they love" argument. If I loved two women and can only marry one a a time. Am I hollering for relief from such preposterous bigotry? Come on! We already are exactly equal under the law. Once again, Hoot, you are using exactly the same argument that was used against interracial marriage. "Them blacks can marry just like anybody else. They just have to marry the same race, is all, just like everybody else." "Them homos can marry just like everybody else. They just have to marry the opposite sex, is all, just like everybody else." Restricting the marriage contract by gender is sexist in exactly the same way that restricting the marriage contract by race was racist. Are you still not following here? Are you that dense? Let's make it really obvious. Explain specifically in detail how interracial marriage and gay marriage are different. Why does the 14th Amendment force interracial marriage to be legal, but not force homosexual marriage to be legal? What is the legal difference between discrimination by race and discrimination by gender? We are not equal under the law, just as interracial couples were not equal under the law until Loving v. Virginia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"They're free to marry someone of the (oppostite gender/same race) just like me!" See? It's the same bigoted argument as was used against interracial marriage. Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman. That definition would have to be changed. That definition is assumed in over a thousand laws that mention the word marriage in them. We do not know all the ramifications of a simple change to the definition. To simply change it, willy-nilly, is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage. I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
HM writes:
Are you suggesting that if a defining characteristic of a person is a matter of their choosing, then it is ok to enact prejudicial policies against that person? I don't care how you cut it. If a homosexual has a chance to have his or her condition reversed, and he or she declines the opportunity, then he or she is making a choice. Does that mean I can turn down a potential tenant because he is a Buddhist, or a Muslim? Can I also turn him down if he works as a lawyer or a plumber? I didn't know I had that kind of freedom as a landlord. In fact, I was under the impression that this was kind of frowned upon by the State.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
quote: Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman. Incorrect. Loving v. Virgina was the result of a specific ban on interracial marriages, exactly like the California ban on same-sex marriages.
quote: quote: Both from Wikipedia. While the marriage contract may not have technically included a racial component, the law did define marriage along racial lines. The fact remains that the arguments both for and against same-gender marriage are identical to those used in interracial marriage cases.
That definition would have to be changed. That definition is assumed in over a thousand laws that mention the word marriage in them. We do not know all the ramifications of a simple change to the definition. To simply change it, willy-nilly, is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Be specific. Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage. This is also not an "whimsical" change, CS. This is a change necessitated by the Constitution of the United States. All other laws are secondary to the Constitution.
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Oh no! A form would need to be changed! Think of teh cost of a word processor! We might need to make new copies! Heaven forbid! Note that the repeal (and initial passage) of the Racial Integrity Act also necessitated new forms be drawn up because of the "racial information" required by the law.
Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage. Those laws that mention marriage are the reason gays want to be married in the first place. You know, the laws that define inheritance when one partner dies, or that grant the right to be at their partner's bedside without interferance from the family in case of incapacitation, or tax status, etc. How do any of those laws stop functioning in a meaningful way by allowing two men or two women to be married? Again, demonstrate a single law that would be meaningfully changed in its function by allowing two parties of the same gender to marry.
I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed. Right, so gay marriage can work as long as we call them "butt buddies." Adding a different word is discrimination, CS. It doesn't solve the problem at all. Equal treatment is guaranteed under the law, and what you're proposing does not satisfy that guarantee. There are two options: Remove marriage from the law entirely and replace every instance of the word "marriage" with "civil union," allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union" regardless of gender or race, and let the word "marriage" be used however individuals want it to be used in a non-legalized, non-state-recognized fashion; or allow gays to be married by removing any laws or definitions that forbid same-gender marriage. The first will never be supported by enough of the citizenry to happen, and is unnecessarily complex. The second is what happened in Loving v. Virginia, and what should happen now, as California and Massachusetts have both done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Could you point out what federal statute provides this definition? DOMA? Has that definition been provided in any other statute? Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman. Do these thousands of laws state that the gender of the parties involved has any effect on the law's enactment? Couldn't the redefinition of marriage effectively change the other laws since they only refer to "marriage", and "spouse"?
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage. The only place in the license that mentions gender is...
I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed.quote: There is nothing that says the woman cannot put her name in the groom's part of the form. Adding "civil unions" to the mix for gay couples would require as much effort as just redefining marriage. Any gender specific laws would have to be changed in order to apply to civil unions, just like it would if marriage were redefined.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024