Gay Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

The key question for you, IN, is whether or not you would do the same thing if any of those supreme courts ruled against your position.

 

I find your question unmoving and irrelevant... it is not a "key question" in the least. My mind is not made up on an issue due to the ruling of a court, but instead due to the merit of the argument in its favor. I don't decide to treat black people equally because a court ruling told me I had to. I do it because they are human just like me and deserve the same respect... because equality is the more meritorious position for my stance.

 

Again, my opinions are not decided by the courts, but are informed by the merits of the position itself.

 

 

 

Then... Not to mention, as I've stated before, Supreme Court rulings reflect only the current interpretation of constitutionality, not the final one.... so, there's always that.

[jackson33]

Infinite quote;

Then... Not to mention, as I've stated before, Supreme Court rulings reflect only the current interpretation of constitutionality, not the final one.... so, there's always that.

 

As I said before, your would not, but not then stated, nor should you if your CONVICTIONS dictate otherwise. In the case of SSM, however the Congress can impose a likely lengthy time period against recognition of what constitutes marriage for legal status in the US, that the SC would have to enforce.

 

 

When referring to American Traditional Values or Culture, it's basically the foundation for what exist. The terms are universal/generic to all societies, generally nationalities in the World. If you prefer and I often do, break down one State and its history it will vary from another, even a neighboring State. The point is we are talking in general terms related to a Union of today 50 States and 4/5 Territories and a general set of values we all accept, willingly or not. Culture vary in each State and often with in areas of a single State.

 

Slavery is a concept IMO, and we could argue whether voluntary or involuntary in a good many cases. Many African's volunteered for Slavery for instance and not all were forced. Then in the US, slavery was not all that accepted and as movements succeeded this concept eventually dissolved. Even here remember thousands, stayed on with their original owners as share croppers, feeling they were better off. Were talking generations and to my knowledge into the 1960's. Since you like to twist comments, please note, I DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER PROMOTED THE IDEA OF SLAVERY.

 

Traditional values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Traditional values refer to those beliefs, moral codes, and mores that are passed down from generation to generation within a culture, subculture or community.

 

lemit quote;

Okay, let's get rid of Tradition in this discussion. It is a red herring that has begun to smell. A simple truth is that human rights can't be parsed. You can't give one group its rights while you deny another group. All the Christians who would deny human rights maybe ought to find another definition for themselves. They are sorting out things they don't want to see and skipping over the real theology of the last couple of millenia. The scholarly works they would find if they looked promote human rights. There's nothing much else you can get out of the New Testament..

 

lemit; The above was written not posted (off topic in that context)) and directed to 'Infinite', however it's relevant in your context;

 

Personally I believe the US general Traditional values/customs and Cultural Values stem from the first settlements into what became the US on to whatever exist today. If you prefer a difference to some degree of where each group came from and the melting into a single Colony, then States. The Constitution that we exist under today being part of that evolved culture.

 

Slavery was never an accepted concept by any National majority and more a concept of compassion to many people than over that of forced labor. I might add this slave/owner relationship lasted well into the 20th century under 'share cropping' and by no means was it forced.

 

Traditions are ACCEPTED ideas, belief's, morals, that get passed down, many of which have been well before 1790, the second effort to unite the States. Christmas, itself is based on religious beliefs was NOT Nationally Celebrated in the US, though in England and other parts of the World, until the late 19th Century.

 

Christmas History in America

 

After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America’s new constitution. Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

 

'Human rights'; Do you believe it's the Federal Governments job to dictate what may or may NOT be acceptable behavior. If not and I would agree, then who or what is it that should place limitations on what's acceptable. Would you then agree that society has certain rights over the individuals rights?

[lemit]

1619. 1619 to 1776 slavery under Colonial rule. 1776 - 1789 slavery under the Revolutionary government in Southern States (what he heck is the name of that period?) 1789 - 1863 slavery in Southern US States. The area that is today the United States has a history of 244 years of Slavery.

 

There may have been oppression of rights longer than that, but slavery was 244 years. The United States itself only had Slavery for 87 years if you begin from the Declaration of Independence. 74 years from the ratification of the Constitution. All too many years. None are "nearly 400" as is so commonly asserted that it is accepted as a fact.

 

Bill

 

I shouldn't write when I'm angry. Thanks for delicately reminding me I blew it. Now I'm going to do some more writing while I'm still angry.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

I find your question unmoving and irrelevant... it is not a "key question" in the least.

You're a chicken if you don't answer this challenge: The key question for you, IN, is whether or not you would do the same thing if any of those supreme courts ruled against your position.

 

Again, my opinions are not decided by the courts, but are informed by the merits of the position itself.

What a load of crap! You regard your "informed" subjectivity as superior to the SCOTUS...unless, of course, it ruled in your favor.

 

Then... Not to mention, as I've stated before, Supreme Court rulings reflect only the current interpretation of constitutionality, not the final one.... so, there's always that.

Indeed! And there's always a toy in every box of Kracker Jacks, unless there isn't.

[enorbet2]

Well, to me, marriage is between one man and one woman, while, to you, it can be something else. I’m OK with changing my stand of traditional marriage if a state supreme court or SCOTUS interprets their respective constitutions in favor of “gay marriage.” I’ll go along with it and give up my traditional values to show my support for this constitutional republic.

 

The key question for you, IN, is whether or not you would do the same thing if any of those supreme courts ruled against your position.

 

Forgive me Larv, but that seems like a cop out to me. It was that sort of thinking that prevented the US Constitution, especially of course the Bill of Rights, from being applied evenly across the board as is implied in "all men are created equal". This is especially true when one considers that since the document is about law and delegation of rights and responsibilities, not a biology textbook, that "under the law" is also implied as the only qualifier.

 

So should women have just called it a "good fight" and gone home when Calvin Coolidge and his cronies wanted to marginalize their struggle? How about the Civil Rights struggle? Over and over the Supreme Court broke the letter of the law of the land in maintaining a government of men not law, punishing women and any one else subject to WASP-Y prejudice. Is this OK with you?

 

Please remember that we are talking about Civil law not Church Law here. While there may be a few unreasonable souls who wish that Church's could be forced to accept members like Country Clubs :hihi: for the most part all these people want is equality under the Law, they will deal with God themselves.

 

What possible concern is it of any government to differentiate between civil bonds that allow hospital visitation, tax breaks, insurance breaks, etc etc based on what is obviously religious dogma?

 

It is essential to everyone that Law be Just and Fair, or The Constitution has no meaning. It would be (and still is) just aristocracy concealed. In that vein it is essential to "weed out" any and all remaining instances where the Church is not separate from State.

 

The major reason in my mind that gay people wish to have the bond referred to as marriage is so no discrimination is possible by older legislation or corporate contracts that specify "marriage" instead of some other name for a civil union. Likely too they wish to step out from under the unfair and unwarranted repression caused by continuing treatment as second class citizens.

 

I fail to see how what two consenting adults do together in the privacy of their homes harms you or anyone. The law is to protect your rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. It isn't to guarantee your happiness, nor coddle your sensibilities.

[freeztar]

Equal rights for everyone is of utmost importance, imho.

What is wrong with just having equality?

 

No gay couple that I know disagrees with me here. They simply want equal rights under the law. Awesome! Splendid! Let's do it!

 

I'm kind of with larv on this. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Gay Marriage, awesome, and that's the new marriage. If the opposite happens, well, that's what it is for now. I'm not willing to take to the streets over it, frankly, because I'm not gay and I'm not really passionate enough about it.

 

It doesn't help that my gay friends are dispassionate about the whole thing. In their minds, it will be much more likely for them to have state recognized partnership way before "gay marriage". They see that effort as a set back. One step at a time...

 

Of course, me and my friends hail from only a single state in the union and I realize that things are different in other states (and certainly different in other countries). Nonetheless, I thought I'd share, for some perspective.

[Cedars]

So should women have just called it a "good fight" and gone home when Calvin Coolidge and his cronies wanted to marginalize their struggle? How about the Civil Rights struggle? Over and over the Supreme Court broke the letter of the law of the land in maintaining a government of men not law, punishing women and any one else subject to WASP-Y prejudice. Is this OK with you?

Women could not vote. Women were basically the property of their husband. Homosexuals are not prevented from casting a ballot regardless of the issue of civil unions. Homosexuals are not relegated to the back of the bus. Homosexuals do not have separate water fountains.

Please remember that we are talking about Civil law not Church Law here. While there may be a few unreasonable souls who wish that Church's could be forced to accept members like Country Clubs :hihi: for the most part all these people want is equality under the Law, they will deal with God themselves.

We are talking about state licensure here.

What possible concern is it of any government to differentiate between civil bonds that allow hospital visitation, tax breaks, insurance breaks, etc etc based on what is obviously religious dogma?

There are plenty of restrictions on how this particular license is applied, as BigDog pointed out with his own child example and insurance breaks. Religious dogma plays a part for SOME people and their opinion on gay marriage, but the issue is much more than that.

 

Entitlements such as tax breaks, insurance breaks, immigration preferences/entitlements (and much more) are all wrapped up with the validation of gay marriage as the same thing as heterosexual coupling.

 

It is essential to everyone that Law be Just and Fair, or The Constitution has no meaning. It would be (and still is) just aristocracy concealed. In that vein it is essential to "weed out" any and all remaining instances where the Church is not separate from State.

And those items not outlined in the constitution as federal powers are relegated to the states to legislate. Tax status is clearly one of the federal powers to regulate. For tax purposes a marriage means one man, one woman. You cannot have two wives or two husbands regardless of your sexual orientation. At a certain age you cannot claim a child as a dependent, regardless of the fact its still your child (and maybe living in your basement at 35, much to your dismay).

The major reason in my mind that gay people wish to have the bond referred to as marriage is so no discrimination is possible by older legislation or corporate contracts that specify "marriage" instead of some other name for a civil union. Likely too they wish to step out from under the unfair and unwarranted repression caused by continuing treatment as second class citizens.

Polygamists feel this way also. And most of them are heterosexual.

I fail to see how what two consenting adults do together in the privacy of their homes harms you or anyone. The law is to protect your rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. It isn't to guarantee your happiness, nor coddle your sensibilities.

In Minnesota, two consenting adults can and do live together without harrassment from the state. Homosexuals can and do purchase homes, perform commitment/life partner ceremonies, assign each other Power of Attorney for medical decisions. They get life insurance and assign each other as beneficiary. And they are not violating any law nor are they harrassed by the state of MN for these actions.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the objective observations associated with gay behavior, is that gay behavior will make some people feel uncomfortable. It even makes some people irrational to point of violence. The question becomes, is this propensity for some to become gay squeamish or defensive, caused by genetics?

 

In other words, if gay is considered natural, could the anti-gay affects also be natural and induced by this trigger? Or if the anti-gay is socially conditioned, even to the level of an extreme irrational compulsion, could gay also be conditioned? Because of the symbiosis, I would assume both are from the same cloth.

 

One scenario for the evolution of the anti-gay gene goes like this. With apes, gay behavior often occurs to define pecking order. But this does not mean the bottom ape is enjoying himself. From the point of view of the lessor or bottom apes, being a pin cushion to the larger apes may be less of a joy and more the lessor of two evils; either rape or a beating. Could the anti-gay gene have evolved to give some level of selective advantage to the bottom apes?

 

Based on this and the new anti-gay gene, humans may have evolved from the bottom apes. They needed to break out of the prison of a confined group, to avoid the rule of the gay ape rape (such as in modern prisons where the group is confined). History shows human heading away from the gay ape and expanding. Homophobia may be due to this primal fear of the old ape way.

[lemit]

One of the objective observations associated with gay behavior, is that gay behavior will make some people feel uncomfortable. It even makes some people irrational to point of violence. The question becomes, is this propensity for some to become gay squeamish or defensive, caused by genetics?

 

In other words, if gay is considered natural, could the anti-gay affects also be natural and induced by this trigger? Or if the anti-gay is socially conditioned, even to the level of an extreme irrational compulsion, could gay also be conditioned? Because of the symbiosis, I would assume both are from the same cloth.

 

One scenario for the evolution of the anti-gay gene goes like this. With apes, gay behavior often occurs to define pecking order. But this does not mean the bottom ape is enjoying himself. From the point of view of the lessor or bottom apes, being a pin cushion to the larger apes may be less of a joy and more the lessor of two evils; either rape or a beating. Could the anti-gay gene have evolved to give some level of selective advantage to the bottom apes?

 

Based on this and the new anti-gay gene, humans may have evolved from the bottom apes. They needed to break out of the prison of a confined group, to avoid the rule of the gay ape rape (such as in modern prisons where the group is confined). History shows human heading away from the gay ape and expanding. Homophobia may be due to this primal fear of the old ape way.

 

I can't agree with your premise that there is some genetically identifiable "gay" behavior. Why are you tying the anti-gay gene to behavior? If people who are gay naturally repel people who are not gay wouldn't they do so regardless of their behavior, as a result of pheromones or some other natural trait not reproducible by people who are not gay?

 

Have you considered the possibility that what you call "gay" behavior is actually "outsider" behavior? Wouldn't it make sense that Lord Alfred Douglas' "love that dares not speak its name" would adapt to necessary secrecy and, if allowed to burst forth, might do so somewhat flamboyantly? People I have known who have had the support of family and friends to get past that initial discovery they were gay and have been encouraged to live their own lives however they wanted to don't exhibit that behavior and don't get the response.

 

The gay communities I've lived in (which might include where I live now) have been on the inside astoundingly dull and middle class. On the other hand, I once lived on a boundary line between two San Francisco neighborhoods more flamboyant than arguably one of the most flamboyant gay neighborhoods in the world. I happened to live over a Mafia bar across the street from Chinatown. By your definition, both of those neighborhoods, particularly the Mafiosi, exhibit gay behavior, although I would not recommend suggesting so in that bar.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

Forgive me Larv, but that seems like a cop out to me. It was that sort of thinking that prevented the US Constitution, especially of course the Bill of Rights, from being applied evenly across the board as is implied in "all men are created equal". This is especially true when one considers that since the document is about law and delegation of rights and responsibilities, not a biology textbook, that "under the law" is also implied as the only qualifier.

But, enorbet2, I’m not talking about depriving gays of any rights. I want to see them get all their rights, but calling their civil unions “marriage” in not one of them. Gays lose nothing in any legal context by simply calling their civil unions “domestic partnerships.”

 

I fail to see how what two consenting adults do together in the privacy of their homes harms you or anyone. The law is to protect your rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. It isn't to guarantee your happiness, nor coddle your sensibilities.

But this thread is about “gay marriage,” and no one here wants to deprive gays from their Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Out here in the state of Washington homosexuals can have their Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and not call their domestic partnerships “marriage.” I fail to see the harm in that, and the state legislature agrees; that’s why we have the “Everything But Marriage” law. And it’s constitutional, too.

[enorbet2]

Ping Larv:

The problem with any wording other than "marriage" seems to me to be that no democratic government can rule that all insurance companies, banks, hospitals, etc. treat "domestic partnerships" (or any other spin doctoring) equally with marriage. AFAIK the only way to slide under the door is to call it what it is as far as The State is concerned, marriage, and let Churches continue to maintain, should they see fit, that Caesar's Law is not God's Law and that in their opinion God's Law is supreme. Render unto Caesar.....?

[modest]

I’m not talking about depriving gays of any rights. I want to see them get all their rights, but calling their civil unions “marriage” in not one of them. Gays lose nothing in any legal context by simply calling their civil unions “domestic partnerships.”

 

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. That's often-times fine. Not everyone deserves a drivers license. If you're 14, you're not equal to an 18 year old. That's segregation and it's fine. But, you can't give a 14 year old a learners permit and a 16 year old a drivers license and call it "equal". It's not. Segregation is inequality.

 

~modest

[Larv]

Ping Larv:

The problem with any wording other than "marriage" seems to me to be that no democratic government can rule that all insurance companies, banks, hospitals, etc. treat "domestic partnerships" (or any other spin doctoring) equally with marriage. AFAIK the only way to slide under the door is to call it what it is as far as The State is concerned, marriage, and let Churches continue to maintain, should they see fit, that Caesar's Law is not God's Law and that in their opinion God's Law is supreme. Render unto Caesar.....?

I can't speak for God's Law or that of Caesar, but I can tell you that in the state of Washington gay domestic partnerships now enjoy every single legal right that married couples enjoy. Here we have an actual demonstration of how fair and equal our "Everything But Marriage" law really is. And I haven't heard of any complaints.

[Larv]

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. That's often-times fine. Not everyone deserves a drivers license. If you're 14, you're not equal to an 18 year old. That's segregation and it's fine. But, you can't give a 14 year old a learners permit and a 16 year old a drivers license and call it "equal". It's not. Segregation is inequality.

This point has been brought up before, of course, and I truly cannot say if it applies to gay DPs vs. "gay marriage." I frankly do not know enough about the U. S. Constitution to make a call on your separate-but-equal objection. But I will be perfectly content with whatever the SCOTUS rules on this matter, probably by ruling of the DOMA, or with a ruling by a state supreme court. Will you be content, too? Or will you claim superior knowledge to that of the courts if they rule against your opinion?

[Zythryn]

Larv, I applaud your state for giving domestic partnerships all the same rights and privledges of marraige.

Do you know if those rights and privaledges extend across state lines should the couple travel or move?

[InfiniteNow]

I can tell you that in the state of Washington gay domestic partnerships now enjoy every single legal right that married couples enjoy.

 

Not when it comes to federal benefits and privileges... The aforementioned equality regards only benefits and privileges conferred by Washington state itself. Outside Washington? Same segregation, lack of equality.

 

 

 

 

Do you know if those rights and privaledges extend across state lines should the couple travel or move?

They do not. If the couple moves (to a state without the same protections), their union is unrecognized and any marriage related rights and privileges are no longer available to them.

[Zythryn]

Hmmm, seems rather limited, but a much better than nothing.

Upon some reading at Frequently Asked Questions, it seems that the state does not yet recognize a number of rights granted by marraige in their domestic partnerships. Although the law has passed and been signed, there is talk of a challenge to it so the most recent law won't go into affect until December.