Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
|
"It's the part that basically says you cannot deny State privileges to certain people."
bluering, there is a schism in the Constitution in that it is supposed to be the prevailing word in some areas, while maintaining sovereignty of individual states in other areas. In a broad, conceptual sense, there is a similar schism that exists amongst the citizens: those that believe that the individual's rights are paramount and above all laws, and those that believe that laws (as created by government of the people) create protections and benefits to the citizens.
I digress. Since the Constitution was created, it has been amended and revised in an effort to refine and define it by it's core principles. The 14th amendment was written broadly towards the issue of equality: it mentions nothing of race, yet the 14th amendment was eventually the core element of the movement to end slavery, and the US judicial system decided that this issue superceded an individual state's rights.
Gay rights are destined for the same scrutiny under the Constitution- the only question is how the SCOTUS will address it. Yesterday's court ruling that put a hold on gay marriage in CA until Walker's decision can be reviewed for it's Constitutionality is just a bus-stop on the way to the SCOTUS.
It will be quite interesting to see how the Roberts court handles this issue- thusfar, they have certainly proved themselves to be conservative leaning, and strict constitutionalists, however they haven't made many decisions on social issues like gay rights (or possibly abortion). It's quite possible they will turn it back to the state as a state's rights issue, but I hope they have the cajones to deal with it mano-a-mano: this is a basic human rights issue, and deserves broad protections. If they are the 'strict constitutionalists' they have been demonstrating themselves to be thusfar, it would be very hypocritical to decide this issue against these basic rights for citizens.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
|
It will be interesting to see how it goes, Apogee.
I don't know about referring to it as a "basic human right" though...but then I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
"I don't know about referring to it as a "basic human right" though...but then I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?"
I don't know how it could be defined as anything but an individual's basic human right to be married. Opponents argue that marriage is fundamental to the stability of society (which I agree with to a large extent), but marriage is at least as much a legal premise as it is a social one. To my eye, opponents keep throwing up emotional, fear-based arguments that distract from the simple, legal, Constitutional reality that marriage is equally a legal premise in this country, and that all US citizens are entitled to equal protection under those laws.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
Justice Kennedy will be deciding this matter.
I think the district court was probably wrong on the fundamental right to marriage aspect and correct on the equal protection component.
I have yet to hear an explanation as to how the state can exclude a group from obtaining a license.
Gay people can be licensed to drive, be contractors, doctors, lawyers, etc. A marriage license issued by the state is no different. The only way to argue that it is different is to import religious and moral ideals, which the state may not do for some licenses but not others (and generally not at all).
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:16pm PT
|
I do understand Bluering's, and others, objection to same sex marriage.
If I have it right, they personally feel their own marriages would be
cheapened, made less relevant, by people with the same sex organs getting married.
In addition, they feel personally repulsed me the physical act of people
with the same sex organs having oral, anal, or vaginal insertions.
Blue and Rox and others have every "right" to how they feel.
I don't think anyone who disagrees with them is asking them to, or expecting
them to, change how they feel.
However, the issue of granting same sex marriage is a legal issue within the
court system.
It is a personal issue when put for general population voting.
The "will" of the majority (voting) is often at odds with the Federal Constitution's directive of life, liberty, pursuit or happiness, and Due
Process for ALL citizens, regardless if their view are in the majority
or the minority.
The general "opinion" or "will of the people" throughout US history has been found to be secondary to the clear intent of the constitution's
written language. Recent examples include women being "given" the same
voting rights as men(even when public "will" was against it), and civil
right legislation guaranteeing equal rights to blacks, when the public
would have opposed doing so, in 1965.
|
|
Gene
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:07pm PT
|
The "will" of the majority (voting) is often at odds with the Federal Constitution's directive of life, liberty, pursuit or happiness, and Due Process for ALL citizens, regardless if their view are in the majority or the minority. ~Norton (above)
Correct!
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. ~West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:55pm PT
|
Rokjox,
I think a great many letter writers to the Wall Street Journal agree with your position. After the decision, several wrote that there is an easy solution: Have the government issue only civil union licenses (to whoever wants them), and let marriage again become an institution solely for the churches to decide and administer.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:47pm PT
|
"Have the government issue only civil union licenses (to whoever wants them), and let marriage again become an institution solely for the churches to decide and administer."
That has long been my preferred solution, but to do so would require such a massive restructuring of the definition of marriage in this country, that it seems entirely unlikely. Some opponents of gay marriage would point to it as irrefutable evidence that gay marriage is undermining the fabric of our society; other opponents would support such a strategy knowing damn well it will never happen- they get political brownie points from most facets of their opponent constituents that way, though.
Separating the legal and religion elements of marriage is a long-time coming- the further apart that church and state are separated, the better off this country and it's citizens will be, in my book.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:11pm PT
|
I know people who think sexuality beyond procreation is relatively irrelevant and that it is more accurate to define couples as either Dom-Fem, Fem-Fem, or Dom-Dom regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. It's an interesting perspective when you start really looking around at heterosexual couples you know.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 06:43pm PT
|
Being born gay and wanting same sex marriage: not evil.
Wanting to tell gays they can't have the same rights as heteros even though it causes you no harm: evil.
Hey Fet, it's more like this:
1) Assuming people are born gay: politically motivated and ignorant of the limitations of genetic predisposition. The possibility of sexual orientation as a personal evolution cannot be denied; its status as equivalent to some kind of specially-protected minority group is patently absurd. (the fact that so many municipalities and institutions pander to that belief makes it no less absurd).
2) Characterizing the campaign to redefine marriage as a civil rights issue: narrow minded and disingenuous. A man's right to marry another man is no more recognizable than a man's right to marry a chimpanzee. As it stands now, any man has the right to marry any woman, and vice versa --even if you call yourself gay-- the rights you have to marry are the same as what the rest of us have, and they are not at risk.
It's not "evil" or bigoted to underscore the definition of marriage. It is a traditional word referring to a formation of traditional family. Not everyone has to do it. --I am not married.
Whatever perversions we do in our own privacy is of no consequence to others, and should not afford us special rights to change the meanings of marriage or family under the law. Do you get that it's not just religious people who object to the idea of changing our language to accommodate special interest groups?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:16pm PT
|
Sounds like you need to take a biology class. Homosexuality is common place in the rest of the animal kingdom.
Define common place. Is it a freak of nature (low percentage inter-species), or really "common place".
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:44pm PT
|
If we "allow" homosexual marriages, we will HAVE to eliminate the onus of homosexual practices, and your kids are going to have to live in that world.
Exactly! I for one can hardly wait until that day. Imagine having to actually not hate someone for what they choose to do with another consenting adult in the privacy of their own home.
Please to explain how this issue doesn't boil down to a religious one, especially in light of the CASC ruling expressly stating this right? I've read all of the posts to the contrary, but I can't find a winning point to support the Prop 8 premise.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
|
There is this twisted way of thinking that says that if marriage is defined as man+woman, then gay people are being deprived of their right to marry.
In my opinion, you are no more bound to a life of gay-ness than I am to a life of constant travel and outdoor adventure. Both are issues that may keep us from getting married. No biggie, those are the choices we make.
There is no tick box on the marriage license that asks "Are you homosexual?" There is no statute that says "Gays shall not marry".
I don't care who is gay and who is not. In fact, sometimes, I would rather not know. The state doesn't care either. Whoever you are, you can find someone of the opposite sex and marry.
The modernist view is that we need to change what marriage means...a view that seeks to affirm the mythical rights that same-sex partners have to call their relationships "marriage". Prop 8 is just calling Bullsh*t on that.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
|
That's some kind of logic there, Bertrand.
|
|
wildone
climber
Troy, MT
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
|
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:05pm PT
|
Skeptimistic, I just gave you one.
WC, gay activity in the animal kingdom doesn't prove genetic origin. Animals, especially intelligent species, experiment and make choices in similar ways that humans do. Two dolphins buggering each other might just mean they got curious...it doesn't mean they have some kind of gay mutation in their dna.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
|
It is Gary, and you can get there too. Just open your mind, and consider things beyond the regurgitated cud of the usual pro-gay / anti-gay arguments.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:11pm PT
|
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.
No one is saying religious people don't support Prop 8. The point is that religion is not the ONLY reason to support it.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
|
I just gave you one
No, you gave me your opinion, not a logical argument.
The CASD ruling simply brings to light the previously wrongful denial of the right of a person to marry another person regardless of their sexual apparatus. Prop 8, a denial of an existing state constitutional right, barely won because of the Rovian strategy of fear-mongering and misinformation almost exclusively financed by the mormon church.
And you're right- there is no "tick box" for sexual orientation or a statute that says gays cannot marry. So why try to deny it? What is your basic problem with it? Why can't it be called a marriage? What components of a marriage are exclusive to male-female unions that gays should not have?
I'm happy that you don't care about a person's sexual orientation, but I'm a bit suspect when I see you have such a problem with the issue to begin with.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
|
No wonder you have never found anyone.
Haha, I knew when I said that I am not married, it would be low hanging fruit for a personal attack. That's a pretty cheap remark, and you probably feel it's okay to insult me b/c we so strongly disagree on a particular political issue.
It's that attitude, as also reflected by the title of this thread, that gets in the way of fresh conversation about a legitimate 2-sided issue. I guess it's your right to keep on thinking of it as good vs. evil, and leave the real discussion to others.
...btw, I don't know how to respond to your other remarks, it just looks like circular reasoning on every point. come on, refute me.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!