| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2008 06:54:31 AM · #776 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal
"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. |
GM provides benefits for Domestic Partners, but that is likely short lived as they may be out of business soon. If they had more sales and therefore more employees then more Domestic Partners would have coverage. FWIW. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 09:43:12 AM · #777 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Mousie:
NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal
"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. |
GM provides benefits for Domestic Partners, but that is likely short lived as they may be out of business soon. If they had more sales and therefore more employees then more Domestic Partners would have coverage. FWIW. |
If they made vehicles that more consumers wanted to buy then they'd have more customers and you wouldn't need to go around tying this into every thread you post in. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 09:48:38 AM · #778 |
Originally posted by JMart:
By the way, I saw  Bear_Music posting in here. Shouldn't someone in his condition be banned from the rant section?!? :P j/k, Those were some good points made earlier. |
I had a lot of time to think, and this whole debate was one thing i thought a lot about. I was hoping to move it away from its entirely pointless, circular argumentation between the two opposed camps and try to open up the more interesting (to me) area of WHY reasonable people like Doc are so accepting of gays as individuals but so adamant that they should not be allowed to marry.
I think I succeeded at that, and it has been an interesting discussion so far :-)
Now, back to bed with me...
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 09:52:51 AM · #779 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've basically tried to make my argument on cultural grounds, but you haven't engaged me. |
If I haven't engaged you, it's my bad. Can you either restate your cultural argument or point me to the appropriate threads? |
Well, let's see, your primary (impersonal) argument seems to be that it's okay to ban gay marriage because the culture deems it unacceptable. Have I got that right before I proceed? |
(feels like he's on the stand)...uh...I may have said that. ;) To be clear, I've advocated that culture can define "marriage" as it wishes. However if it defines it as between "man and woman" I've advocated a parallel track for homosexual unions. |
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was trying to paraphrase your position. This is a common way of trying to achieve understanding.
I would counter your argument with this: culture does not define its practices through majority votes. The practices of a culture occur and evolve organically. They are what they are. So let's be clear abou this:
Laws do not create culture, nor do they describe culture. Some laws are an attempt to maintain culture. Since they do not change as quickly or as organically as culture does, they are often behind the curve.
Proposition 8 is an amendment to a state Constitution passed by a slim majority of voters, far less than a majority if you include the entire population of the state. By no means does it speak for "culture."
"Culture" is a complex set of codes and behaviors studied by anthropologists. With a society as large and varied as the United States, it becomes extremely complex, which is why we have such terms as "subcultures." But subcultures are not easily defined. Where are their boundaries?
Your argument is that "liberty" is not the only factor in creating laws. That is correct. Morality is legislated. There is a concern for what is "culturally acceptable," which of course assumes that there is a culture to begin with. The distinction between local and federal law becomes in this case a distinction between a monolithic national culture and local subcultures. These cultures clashed during the civil rights movement, when racism was finally considered so reprehensible that it offended the national culture, and no subculture had the right to circumvent it.
But the truth of the matter was that racism was part of the culture, and still is. But there was another part of the culture that abhorred racism. These different parts, though they coexist culturally, could not coexist under the law, since their agendas are diametrically opposed. The same is true now for those who want equal rights for gays and those who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
One reason the racists lost is simply pragmatic. Blacks were no longer enslaved, they were organizing and gaining more political power. But they also lost because of the principle of equality... NOT liberty. There is a national culture, a national mythology, based on equality of opportunity. It is essential to the American self-definition. Racists were trying to say "you can't drink at this water fountain" and "you can't go to this school." That flies in the face of equal opportunity. Once blacks were granted full citizenship, once they became five fifths of a human being, their rights were inevitable.
This is exactly what's happening with homosexuals today. Throughout history, they have been treated as anathema. Of course it is difficult to find a history of homosexual relationships, because history records the prevailing view of the historians, the dominant factions of society. Thousands of homosexuals want to get married, and are living the lives of married couples. If this were going against culture, it simply would not be happening. Culture is defined by what happens within it, not by how it perceives itself. I can anticipate your counterargument: crime and abuse also happen within a culture. But not really. They are illegal. Criminals are prosecuted and put in jail. Homosexuals are no longer thrown in jail. This is the parallel to slaves being freed. The genie is out of the bottle. It's okay to be a homosexual now. It's legal as well as cultural. You can't free a slave but not give him equal opportunity. Not in this country.
Your equality claim, which most people intuitively understand as fallacious, is that everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Indeed they are, but the other side of the coin is that we are all restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Our potential spouses are not being treated equally. We are allowed access to some, but not others.
The gay man or woman is no longer a cultural outlaw. There are millions of such people, and they are full participants in our culture. That includes the part about falling in love and getting married.
I agree with you that there is also a part of the culture that finds such marriages anathema. These two "subcultures" coexist culturally, but again they cannot coexist legally. One side will lose. And that will be the side who is against equality. Not liberty, but equality.
This is a pattern that happens over and over again. A segment of the population is dehumanized and therefore does not get the same rights (native populations, slaves, each new wave of immigrants). Over time, the realization is made that this segment is indeed human. Discrimination against this segment continues by a stubborn group of the populace, perhaps even a majority. Legislation, based on the principle of equality, strikes down these attempts at discrimination.
I understand that you think there's a difference between race and sexual orientation, but the process is the same, and the same rule applies: genies don't come only halfway out of the bottle. And I don't mean this only as an argument of inevitability. I'm saying that it's *unfair* to try to keep the genie halfway in the bottle. Either be straight up about homosexuality being wrong or let them marry each other. There's no middle ground that makes any sense. As has been said over and over again, no one is making your religion condone gay marriage. No one is making you or your children marry someone of the same sex. A religious person in this country has to accept that they live in a larger culture which allows things their own religious codes do not allow. That's the American way. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 09:57:51 AM · #780 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Mousie:
NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal
"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. |
GM provides benefits for Domestic Partners, but that is likely short lived as they may be out of business soon. If they had more sales and therefore more employees then more Domestic Partners would have coverage. FWIW. |
If they made vehicles that more consumers wanted to buy then they'd have more customers and you wouldn't need to go around tying this into every thread you post in. |
The prior discussion (to my post) was centered on benefits for civil union partners and the refusal for some entities to pay or support "domestic partners". I am merely pointing out that one company (a very large employer with millions of workers and thus subsequently) supports other "family" that have benefits from this employer. By not supporting this company (for whatever reasons you justify) you are by choice not supporting those who receive benefits from said company. So - if benefits for domestic partners is something that is highly important to you, then it may be a consideration for you or others. Mousie purchased a Lexus. Maybe Lexus pays for their employees partners benefits - maybe they don't. Lexus is a very nice vehicle - one of the very finest production vehicles produced. A cadillac STS is also a very fine vehicle as are the CTS's and SRX's - so depending on what your particular needs is, there is a domestic counterpart that could fulfill that need - if it was important to you to choose that. If not - then that is OK too - just be wary of arguing against companies who don't support benefits for partners when personal choices are made to not support companies who do.
I am perfectly comfortable with personal choice (on a whole host of issues). I also believe that responsibility comes with the choices one makes. It is not always someone else's fault. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 10:00:09 AM · #781 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was trying to paraphrase your position. This is a common way of trying to achieve understanding.
I understand that you think there's a difference between race and sexual orientation, but the process is the same, and the same rule applies: genies don't come only halfway out of the bottle. And I don't mean this only as an argument of inevitability. I'm saying that it's *unfair* to try to keep the genie halfway in the bottle. Either be straight up about homosexuality being wrong or let them marry each other. There's no middle ground that makes any sense. As has been said over and over again, no one is making your religion condone gay marriage. No one is making you or your children marry someone of the same sex. A religious person in this country has to accept that they live in a larger culture which allows things their own religious codes do not allow. That's the American way. |
Wowza. Whatta post!
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 10:50:58 AM · #782 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Mousie:
NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal
"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. |
GM provides benefits for Domestic Partners, but that is likely short lived as they may be out of business soon. If they had more sales and therefore more employees then more Domestic Partners would have coverage. FWIW. |
If they made vehicles that more consumers wanted to buy then they'd have more customers and you wouldn't need to go around tying this into every thread you post in. |
The prior discussion (to my post) was centered on benefits for civil union partners and the refusal for some entities to pay or support "domestic partners". |
Not really, it was centered around the legality of marriage between homosexuals. If marriage were legal for these folks, the denial of benefits for their same-sex spouses would be a non-issue. It comes back to the whole "separate but equal" discussion where it's separate, but not really equal.
Originally posted by Flash:
I am merely pointing out that one company (a very large employer with millions of workers and thus subsequently) supports other "family" that have benefits from this employer. By not supporting this company (for whatever reasons you justify) you are by choice not supporting those who receive benefits from said company. So - if benefits for domestic partners is something that is highly important to you, then it may be a consideration for you or others. Mousie purchased a Lexus. Maybe Lexus pays for their employees partners benefits - maybe they don't. Lexus is a very nice vehicle - one of the very finest production vehicles produced. A cadillac STS is also a very fine vehicle as are the CTS's and SRX's - so depending on what your particular needs is, there is a domestic counterpart that could fulfill that need - if it was important to you to choose that. If not - then that is OK too - just be wary of arguing against companies who don't support benefits for partners when personal choices are made to not support companies who do.
I am perfectly comfortable with personal choice (on a whole host of issues). I also believe that responsibility comes with the choices one makes. It is not always someone else's fault. |
No, it's not the "smart guys" that make up the leadership at GM and their utter failure to make vehicles that people want is it? It's the consumer's fault for being a smart consumer and buying the best product for their use. FWIW, I looked through the Consumer's Union "Best Buy" automobiles last night. The only categories where the Detroit Three are anywhere near the top is in Large SUV's and Full-Size Pickups, bot categories that have fewer foreign competitors.
Is GM Worth Saving? I don't know if we really need to affect 3 Million jobs, but if they do get bailed out, GM needs a different leadership that will actually pay attention to the market and respond. GM could make vehicles that people want to buy, their current leadership has just gotten it wrong over the past decades. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 12:13:07 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... culture does not define its practices through majority votes. The practices of a culture occur and evolve organically. They are what they are. So let's be clear abou this:
Laws do not create culture, nor do they describe culture. Some laws are an attempt to maintain culture. Since they do not change as quickly or as organically as culture does, they are often behind the curve.
Proposition 8 is an amendment to a state Constitution passed by a slim majority of voters, far less than a majority if you include the entire population of the state. By no means does it speak for "culture."
"Culture" is a complex set of codes and behaviors studied by anthropologists. With a society as large and varied as the United States, it becomes extremely complex, which is why we have such terms as "subcultures." But subcultures are not easily defined. Where are their boundaries?
Your argument is that "liberty" is not the only factor in creating laws. That is correct. Morality is legislated. There is a concern for what is "culturally acceptable," which of course assumes that there is a culture to begin with. The distinction between local and federal law becomes in this case a distinction between a monolithic national culture and local subcultures. These cultures clashed during the civil rights movement, when racism was finally considered so reprehensible that it offended the national culture, and no subculture had the right to circumvent it.
But the truth of the matter was that racism was part of the culture, and still is. But there was another part of the culture that abhorred racism. These different parts, though they coexist culturally, could not coexist under the law, since their agendas are diametrically opposed. The same is true now for those who want equal rights for gays and those who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
One reason the racists lost is simply pragmatic. Blacks were no longer enslaved, they were organizing and gaining more political power. But they also lost because of the principle of equality... NOT liberty. There is a national culture, a national mythology, based on equality of opportunity. It is essential to the American self-definition. Racists were trying to say "you can't drink at this water fountain" and "you can't go to this school." That flies in the face of equal opportunity. Once blacks were granted full citizenship, once they became five fifths of a human being, their rights were inevitable.
This is exactly what's happening with homosexuals today. Throughout history, they have been treated as anathema. Of course it is difficult to find a history of homosexual relationships, because history records the prevailing view of the historians, the dominant factions of society. Thousands of homosexuals want to get married, and are living the lives of married couples. If this were going against culture, it simply would not be happening. Culture is defined by what happens within it, not by how it perceives itself. I can anticipate your counterargument: crime and abuse also happen within a culture. But not really. They are illegal. Criminals are prosecuted and put in jail. Homosexuals are no longer thrown in jail. This is the parallel to slaves being freed. The genie is out of the bottle. It's okay to be a homosexual now. It's legal as well as cultural. You can't free a slave but not give him equal opportunity. Not in this country.
Your equality claim, which most people intuitively understand as fallacious, is that everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Indeed they are, but the other side of the coin is that we are all restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Our potential spouses are not being treated equally. We are allowed access to some, but not others.
The gay man or woman is no longer a cultural outlaw. There are millions of such people, and they are full participants in our culture. That includes the part about falling in love and getting married.
I agree with you that there is also a part of the culture that finds such marriages anathema. These two "subcultures" coexist culturally, but again they cannot coexist legally. One side will lose. And that will be the side who is against equality. Not liberty, but equality.
This is a pattern that happens over and over again. A segment of the population is dehumanized and therefore does not get the same rights (native populations, slaves, each new wave of immigrants). Over time, the realization is made that this segment is indeed human. Discrimination against this segment continues by a stubborn group of the populace, perhaps even a majority. Legislation, based on the principle of equality, strikes down these attempts at discrimination.
I understand that you think there's a difference between race and sexual orientation, but the process is the same, and the same rule applies: genies don't come only halfway out of the bottle. And I don't mean this only as an argument of inevitability. I'm saying that it's *unfair* to try to keep the genie halfway in the bottle. Either be straight up about homosexuality being wrong or let them marry each other. There's no middle ground that makes any sense. As has been said over and over again, no one is making your religion condone gay marriage. No one is making you or your children marry someone of the same sex. A religious person in this country has to accept that they live in a larger culture which allows things their own religious codes do not allow. That's the American way. |
This is a beautifully crafted, and eloquent bit of reasoning on this subject.
Maybe bear_Music said it best with his excerpt of a passage from it, when he said:
'Wowza. Whatta post! " |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 01:16:33 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Maybe bear_Music said it best with his excerpt of a passage from it, when he said:
'Wowza. Whatta post! " |
I think he missed a good opportunity to say 'awesome post, dude!'
Originally posted by posthumous:
Your equality claim, which most people intuitively understand as fallacious, is that everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Indeed they are, but the other side of the coin is that we are all restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Our potential spouses are not being treated equally. We are allowed access to some, but not others. |
This line of reasoning always seemed to me to be the most willfully offensive and generally odious. It combines a lack of compassion with a bullheaded streak of oblivious literalism. Never quite understood why it annoys me so much when I hear it trotted out.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 13:18:49. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 01:42:27 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Your equality claim, which most people intuitively understand as fallacious, is that everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Indeed they are, but the other side of the coin is that we are all restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Our potential spouses are not being treated equally. We are allowed access to some, but not others. |
This line of reasoning always seemed to me to be the most willfully offensive and generally odious. It combines a lack of compassion with a bullheaded streak of oblivious literalism. Never quite understood why it annoys me so much when I hear it trotted out. |
Perhaps because of the underlying assumption: that marriage excludes homosexuals by its very nature, that this particular kind of happiness is not available to homosexuals, that the relationship between two homosexuals in love with each other cannot be legitimized or sanctified, that homosexuality is something you do rather than something you are, that people whose desires and feelings are different than your own stand outside of your sacred circle and live in a world of shadows, close to but not quite as real as your own world.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:08:25 PM · #786 |
Here's one audio essay from the KQED-FM Perspectives series.
And here is another one by a member of Oakland's Youth Radio project.
Yesterday's Forum broadcast featured a discussion of the role of African-American voters vis-a-vis California's Proposition 8. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:13:36 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I understand that you think there's a difference between race and sexual orientation, but the process is the same, and the same rule applies: genies don't come only halfway out of the bottle. And I don't mean this only as an argument of inevitability. I'm saying that it's *unfair* to try to keep the genie halfway in the bottle. Either be straight up about homosexuality being wrong or let them marry each other. There's no middle ground that makes any sense. As has been said over and over again, no one is making your religion condone gay marriage. No one is making you or your children marry someone of the same sex. A religious person in this country has to accept that they live in a larger culture which allows things their own religious codes do not allow. That's the American way. |
THANK YOU!!!
I could not possibly have said it any better than you. Wow. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:14:26 PM · #788 |
Good post Don. I appreciate the time it took to type all that. Let me respond, in part, with this.
I do not see this as a problem of equality, but a problem of definitions. Previously, in race relations we have had times and places where one race says "we can do this and you can't" (eg riding in the front of the bus or drinking out of certain fountains etc). This is clearly inequality. One race was considered inferior to the other and thus couldn't do such things.
In our current dilemma it is different. Imagine the following hypothetical conversation:
Gay man: I would like to get married.
Court recorder: Certainly sir. What is your future wife's name?
Gay man: Ummm, you don't understand. I want to marry Charles here.
Court recorder: That makes no sense. You can't do that.
Gay man: Why not? Are you discriminating against me because I'm gay?
Court recorder: No sir. You are free to marry any woman you want.
Gay man: But I don't want to marry a woman. I want to marry a man.
Court recorder: Well you can't do that because "marriage" has been defined in our constitution as "man and woman".
Gay man: That's discriminatory.
Court recorder: No it isn't. As I said, you can marry any woman you want.
Gay man: I don't want to marry a woman.
Court recorder: That's your right.
And on and on. The point is, the problem does not come in the fact that one group can do something while another group can't but rather the two groups are defining a word differently and the definition is what matters. Does that make sense?
I appreciate the rest of your typing about culture and law, although I'd consider it descriptional rather than argumentative. It may very well be the case and as I've said culture should be allowed to define marriage. If, down the road, culture defines it as "between two adults" then so be it. You'd be correct in your description in how culture changes laws and not vice versa and I'd be correct in asserting people have the right to define "marriage" as they see fit.
EDIT: On the reread of your post, I see you've already addressed this in your mind. I'm not sure where to go, because I do think it's a legitimate argument while you do not.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:19:08. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:18:20 PM · #789 |
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.
How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?
Step up, conservatives!
Either my vows were not sacred and you believe I as a gay man am incapable of making such a vow, or sacredness itself is meaningless.
Which is it?
If you disagree with my premise and think that this isn't the mutualy exclusive duality I've described above, justify your position!
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:25:02. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:22:50 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And on and on. The point is, the problem does not come in the fact that one group can do something while another group can't but rather the two groups are defining a word differently and the definition is what matters. Does that make sense? |
You have just implicitly suggested that MY culture is less important than conservatives' culture, and that they, out of sheer majority, can tell me how to live. That is the very definition of inequality.
My family and I are NOT ALLOWED to define and live by our culture as we see fit. That is un-American on it's face, unless everyhting I was taught about this big ol' melting pot was a lie.
It's like you're telling American hispanics that they can't eat burritos because Italian pizza is inherently more civilized.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:24:48. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:22:56 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good post Don. I appreciate the time it took to type all that. Let me respond, in part, with this.
I do not see this as a problem of equality, but a problem of definitions. Previously, in race relations we have had times and places where one race says "we can do this and you can't" (eg riding in the front of the bus or drinking out of certain fountains etc). This is clearly inequality. One race was considered inferior to the other and thus couldn't do such things.
In our current dilemma it is different. Imagine the following hypothetical conversation:
Gay man: I would like to get married.
Court recorder: Certainly sir. What is your future wife's name?
Gay man: Ummm, you don't understand. I want to marry Charles here.
Court recorder: That makes no sense. You can't do that.
Gay man: Why not? Are you discriminating against me because I'm gay?
Court recorder: No sir. You are free to marry any woman you want.
Gay man: But I don't want to marry a woman. I want to marry a man.
Court recorder: Well you can't do that because "marriage" has been defined in our constitution as "man and woman".
Gay man: That's discriminatory.
Court recorder: No it isn't. As I said, you can marry any woman you want.
Gay man: I don't want to marry a woman.
Court recorder: That's your right.
And on and on. The point is, the problem does not come in the fact that one group can do something while another group can't but rather the two groups are defining a word differently and the definition is what matters. Does that make sense?
I appreciate the rest of your typing about culture and law, although I'd consider it descriptional rather than argumentative. It may very well be the case and as I've said culture should be allowed to define marriage. If, down the road, culture defines it as "between two adults" then so be it. You'd be correct in your description in how culture changes laws and not vice versa and I'd be correct in asserting people have the right to define "marriage" as they see fit.
EDIT: On the reread of your post, I see you've already addressed this in your mind. I'm not sure where to go, because I do think it's a legitimate argument while you do not. |
A very similar conversation would have taken place not so many years ago had the betrothed been a black man and a white woman. Those resisting such unions tried, much as you are here, to paint it as anything but discrimiation when that's exactly what it is. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:30:21 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good post Don. I appreciate the time it took to type all that. Let me respond, in part, with this.
I do not see this as a problem of equality, but a problem of definitions. |
It's a problem of equality ...
The condition referred-to as "marriage" in the law is a civil contract between two competent adults, by which they aqgree to certain mutual rights and obligations. The State says that if two people agree to this contract, they'll be afforded certain rights and privileges under the law denied to individuals or couples who will not agree to these terms. To say that two persons cannot enter into such a contract solely because of their gender violates the right to equal protection under/application of the law to every individual.
Imagine you're applying for a partnership with the Secretary of State:
You: I'd to form a business partnership.
SoS: Sure -- who's the lucky girl?
You: No, I want to go into business with Fred here.
SoS: Sorry, we only allow partnerships between men and women.
etc......
The Law doesn't give a **** about the religious definition of marriage -- it's not allowed to.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:32:25. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:31:52 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.
How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?
|
It isn't and that's why when we step into the religious argument realm it doesn't matter what arguments are presented the answer is simply "it's wrong". That's not nearly as fun a conversation, but it still stands. The majority of Christianity (just speaking about the religion I'm most versed in) views homosexuality as wrong and thus the idea of "gay marriage" is simply a non sequitur. Marriage is a sacred union between man, woman and God and the idea of altering this to allow a relationship viewed as wrong would indeed destroy the sacredness of the concept.
You'll have to again divorce this line of thought from the rest of my argument which has come from a secular point of view where marriage is not sacred but rather a legal institution. "Sacred" ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." per dictionary.com's first definition) doesn't make sense in this realm. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:33:03 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A very similar conversation would have taken place not so many years ago had the betrothed been a black man and a white woman. Those resisting such unions tried, much as you are here, to paint it as anything but discrimiation when that's exactly what it is. |
Interracial marriage has waxed and waned in its acceptance. Gay marriage is essentially utterly new.
EDIT to add: I learned from Loving vs. Virginia that the laws prohibited whites from marrying outside their race. There were no laws, however, prohibiting a black from marrying an asian. Perhaps this is an interesting clarification and shows the easily discerned discriminatory nature of the law.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:38:04. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:34:06 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The Law doesn't give a **** about the religious definition of marriage -- it's not allowed to. |
Perhaps. But the law does define marriage as man and woman so unless you get that changed your argument doesn't hold water. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:37:04 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The Law doesn't give a **** about the religious definition of marriage -- it's not allowed to. |
Perhaps. But the law does define marriage as man and woman so unless you get that changed your argument doesn't hold water. |
The previous law was ruled unconstitutional.
It remains to be litigated what happens when one section of the constitution is in conflict with another -- it is entirely possible that the SSC will rule that Prop 8 is in conflict with the equal protection clause of either the California or US Constitutions -- remember that the latter trumps any State Constitution.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:37:42. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:38:20 PM · #797 |
Black man: I would like to get married.
Court recorder: Certainly sir. What is your future black wife's name?
Black man: Ummm, you don't understand. I want to marry this white woman here.
Court recorder: That makes no sense. You can't do that.
Black man: Why not? Are you discriminating against me because I'm black?
Court recorder: No sir. You are free to marry any woman of the same race that you want.
Black man: But I don't want to marry a woman of the same race. I want to marry a white woman.
Court recorder: Well you can't do that because "marriage" has been defined in our constitution as "man and woman of the same race".
Black man: That's discriminatory.
Court recorder: No it isn't. As I said, you can marry any woman you want of the same race.
Black man: I don't want to marry a woman of the same race.
Court recorder: That's your right.
And on and on.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:38:30. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:38:44 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The Law doesn't give a **** about the religious definition of marriage -- it's not allowed to. |
Perhaps. But the law does define marriage as man and woman so unless you get that changed your argument doesn't hold water. |
The previous law was ruled unconstitutional.
It remains to be litigated what happens when one section of the constitution is in conflict with another -- it is entirely possible that the SSC will rule that Prop 8 is in conflict with the equal protection clause of either the California or US Constitutions -- remember that the latter trumps any State Constitution. |
I was referring to the 1996 DOMA. That has never yet been ruled unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:45:46 PM · #799 |
The person who is arguing that marriage has always been between man and woman is not stopped by having interracial bans pointed out to them. They can simply agree, "ya, that was discriminatory". When the opposition says, "well, this is the same thing" the reply is simply, "no it's not, this is about defining the word 'marriage'".
Look at it this way. Loving and her husband were hauled before the court for marrying each other. Nobody disagreed they were married. They were arguing that such a marriage was illegal. In our current dilemma everybody is arguing if such a union (a gay one) should even be considered marriage or should it be called something else. I see the two issues as quite different.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 14:46:04. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 02:52:18 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The person who is arguing that marriage has always been between man and woman is not stopped by having interracial bans pointed out to them. They can simply agree, "ya, that was discriminatory". When the opposition says, "well, this is the same thing" the reply is simply, "no it's not, this is about defining the word 'marriage'".
Look at it this way. Loving and her husband were hauled before the court for marrying each other. Nobody disagreed they were married. They were arguing that such a marriage was illegal. In our current dilemma everybody is arguing if such a union (a gay one) should even be considered marriage or should it be called something else. I see the two issues as quite different. |
I just gave you an example, using your own dialogue, of how the definition itself contains the bias. Saying it's not bias because it's a definition is absurd, as I've just shown. Particularly since the "man and a woman" part was specifically added to the definition in order to disallow homosexuals from participating in it. But even if it wasn't, definitions can contain the same intolerance that history does.
I have no intention of convincing you that your opinion is wrong, I just want to reveal it for what it is: anti-gay. |
|
