Just saying.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed.[/quote]
And so could gays. Tanya the transgender lesbian bartender could declare Bruce and Steve married. But why should Bruce and Steve’s relationship receive anymore recognition from the government than the friendship of two fishing buddies? Becuase they screw each other?
This has never been a fight over rights. What an absurd and emasculated people we’ve become. You people have gone ga-ga for some teeny-tiny minority who can swap rings and promise to have sex with only each other. This is, a marriage that can’t produce it’s own biological children within an intact home. A form of marriage that can’t propogate our citizenry, or order the present into pairs which could. You are weak-willed activists looking for a fight. I really hope you’re not the same group that shows up on ‘get a life’ bitching about how ‘wussified’ the present day male is. You’re all too damn simple to recognize that some things aren’t the same by nature. And you’re too damn weak-hearted to stand firm on it.
You’re set to use the government to redefine, spread thin, the definition of the absolutely most important institution this–or any other–has. The Constitution is rough toilet paper–and of no more use–compared to the importance of marriage. Where you should be trying to strengthen it’s stature in our society, you’ve turned marriage into a public toilet. “The gays can’t use that toilet! No fair!”
[quote]Thunderbolt wrote:
If you’re right and I’m wrong, tell me, what consenting adult relationship isn’t eligible for mariage?[/quote]
This. This illsustrates just how absurd the anti-marriage crowd is. Oh yes, the ‘anti-marriage’ crowd. This isn’t a question they’ll address. They don’t want own up to their own ‘bigotry,’ after all.
In the end, this is, ultimately, for the feminist and her feminized male followers, about destroying a “Patriarchal” institution . Or, a libertarian fantasy (multiple partners involved in cocaine-induced orgies, with the consequences settled beforehand through private contracts).
Hey, I’m for an entire neighborhood being recognized as married, if they choose. If those fraternity brothers want the same status, give it them! I’m the ultimate anti-bigot.
We’re the captive audience to what’s becoming the most absurd show on earth.
[/quote]
I’ve wrestled with this issue quite a bit but I think your post makes a lot of sense.
Two other things maybe to note:
1.Christ…there are not bigger behemoths knocking at the gates of our civilization right now that we should be addressing?
2.The “forces”(not too sound to conspiratorial) that have been behind movements like this are severely dangerous to our society. They cleverly prop up various gay couples/people and appeal to the sense of decency in many of us who believe in fairness and accepting others all while they continue their termite-like gnawing at the pillars of America.
as always, whomever arnold sides with wins…
“In a statement, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said, ‘For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves.’”
/thread
[quote]iamthewolf wrote:
as always, whomever arnold sides with wins…
“In a statement, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said, ‘For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves.’”
/thread[/quote]
Didn’t he also say, “I beleive Gay Marriage should be between one man and one woman.”?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
the entire movement behind prop 8 was to marginalize gays. you must not be from CA, if you had seen how prop 8 was pushed, you would know. creating a law saying “only these people can get married” completely marginalizes everyone else, theres no amount of acrobatics to get around that.[/quote]
Incorrect - Prop 8 reaffirmed traditional marriage, which had been in existence long before California. Prop 8 was not designed to hurt anyone - it was designed to reconstitute a policy that had been enacted with no bad faith involved.
Marriage has been around a long time, and it was never - repeat, never - enacted to inflict any kind of harm or unfairness on non-heterosexuals. It as designed to reinforce, in law, a cultural institution that already existed to promote a number of social goods.
Reversing a reversal of this institution is not an act with an invidious motive - that’s just idiotic.
If you’re right and I’m wrong, tell me, what consenting adult relationship isn’t eligible for mariage?
And, you miss the most important part of all - voters in California decided that certain forms of marriage are, in fact, “unequal”, and they are perftectly entitled to under a rational basis test.[/quote]
Define traditional marriage and where does that tradition come from?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I am all for this. What is the reason for banning polygamous marriages? I am more a fan of that than of them being single parents getting assistance.
I just don’t get why I would have the right to tell another person “NO! you cannot marry as you choose.”
[/quote]
Polygamous marriage, IMO, would simply be too complicated. Also, there are some reasonable arguments against it on the basis that it tends to be detrimental to women (whereas men continue to marry new, younger wives as time goes on). Then again, with no fault divorce, there isnt anything from stopping men to do that now… so…I dont know.
Thing is, I’m polyamorous myself, but I wouldnt suggest the government recognizing multiple party marriages.[/quote]
Why would you assume a polygamous mariage would be one guy multiple women. Maybe OG is looking to set herself up a harem.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.[/quote]
Negative, a state can rationally decide to restrict marriage to one group versus another. “Rational” doesn’t mean “I agree with it” - “rational” means “rational”.
The issue is not whether CA voters should ban gay marriage, the issue is whether CA voters can ban gay marriage. The court said they can’t on the basis that they shouldn’t.
You, like the court, are confused.
[/quote]
Negative, the state cannot decide whether or not to restrict marriage. To restrict marriage would be a violation of federal law and the Constitution because it does not give equal protection to gays. The issue is whether California voters, or any voters, can vote to curtail the rights that are afforded to all citizens under the Constitution.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.[/quote]
Well, dipshit, “intent” matters for a rational basis test. The policy without a doubt treats one class of citizens differently than others - that isn’t the question. The question is “is there a rational basis to treat them differently?”, and if there is no invidious motive - i.e., no desire to “be mean” to a class of individuals - then rational basis is a very, very low threshold for a legislature to satisfy.
There is a reason for this - if this isn’t the case, you have one judge invalidating the will of the people over “what feels right”. That’s what happened in California today.[/quote]
What “feels” right is to honor the Constitution over the wishes of the people when the two are in conflict. If we were to vote through the democratic process that blacks should not marry whites, the courts would strike that down as well, and it has nothing to do with “feelings” and everything to do with preserving the sanctity of the Constitution.
America does not stand for exclusivity, we were founded upon a very simple concept called freedom and equality. Prop 8 clearly flew in the face of these values and was rightly overturned as a result.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed.[/quote]
And so could gays. Tanya the transgender lesbian bartender could declare Bruce and Steve married. But why should Bruce and Steve’s relationship receive anymore recognition from the government than the friendship of two fishing buddies? Becuase they screw each other?
This has never been a fight over rights. What an absurd and emasculated people we’ve become. You people have gone ga-ga for some teeny-tiny minority who can swap rings and promise to have sex with only each other. This is, a marriage that can’t produce it’s own biological children within an intact home. A form of marriage that can’t propogate our citizenry, or order the present into pairs which could. You are weak-willed activists looking for a fight. I really hope you’re not the same group that shows up on ‘get a life’ bitching about how ‘wussified’ the present day male is. You’re all too damn simple to recognize that some things aren’t the same by nature. And you’re too damn weak-hearted to stand firm on it.
You’re set to use the government to redefine, spread thin, the definition of the absolutely most important institution this–or any other–country has. The Constitution is rough toilet paper–and of no more use–compared to the importance of marriage. Where you should be trying to strengthen it’s stature in our society, you’ve turned marriage into a public toilet. “The gays can’t use that toilet! No fair!”[/quote]
Sloth, your post illustrates the reasons why I’m a social libertarian. I agree in principal that marriage is a good thing, kids do better with two parents, and all that good stuff. The problem is how to enact legislation to further this goal? Answer: you can’t. In order to “legislate strong marriages,” you would need to enact the following laws:
-
Severely limit divorce, perhaps even make it completely impossible if a couple has kids.
-
To further the goal of “propagating” children, impose a time limit for a married couple to have children. If they do not have children after X number of years, their marriage becomes automatically void. Heck, while you’re at it, require a minimum number of children.
-
In keeping with the further the goal of “propagating” children, prohibit marriages between people with disabilities where having children would be dangerous. Also prohibit marriages between old people who can no longer have children, or between couples where one has been sterilized, unless that person agrees to reverse the procedure.
-
If a couple is allowed to divorce, impose a waiting period before they can remarry. After all, these people were already “one time losers” and probably not good marriage material.
-
Make adultery and “open marriages” a crime regardless of whether the couple consents. Sorry, Pushharder, you’re going to jail.
If you really gave a damn about marriage you would have no problem enacting the above provisions into law. Otherwise, the government’s role in marriage is essentially reduced to enforcing a contract between two individuals that provides some basic economic rights. Hmmm.
Ridiculous, slippery slope arguments cut both ways. The purpose of the Constitution was, and always will be, to protect people from the government and to limit government power. Giving people the right to define their relationships advances this goal. The government’s job is to protect citizen’s from harm. If I punch someone in the face, I have committed a crime. However, if that person and I consent to fight in an octagon in an MMA fight, we have each consented to the harm of being hit by each other. The government’s role ends and we are now covered by the rules of the MMA organization that sanction the fight - a private matter that is governed by a private contract. There have been those who have argued that such public displays of fighting “hurt” society much in the same way that gay marriage “hurts” society, yet boxing and MMA continue. Why? Probably because of the money, but I would also argue that people “get” that it’s a private contract thing.
I’ll say it again: civil marriage (the kind that the government gives you, which is very different than how I and many people I know define our own marriages) is nothing more than a contract between two individuals that provides some basic economic rights. In practice, that’s all it can be. Some couples choose to have many kids, some none at all, and some like to practice an “open marriage.” Yet, these marriages are still recognized as legitimate even though they supposedly thwart what you claim is the the primary purpose of marriage.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I am all for this. What is the reason for banning polygamous marriages? I am more a fan of that than of them being single parents getting assistance.
I just don’t get why I would have the right to tell another person “NO! you cannot marry as you choose.”
[/quote]
Polygamous marriage, IMO, would simply be too complicated. Also, there are some reasonable arguments against it on the basis that it tends to be detrimental to women (whereas men continue to marry new, younger wives as time goes on). Then again, with no fault divorce, there isnt anything from stopping men to do that now… so…I dont know.
Thing is, I’m polyamorous myself, but I wouldnt suggest the government recognizing multiple party marriages.[/quote]
Why would you assume a polygamous mariage would be one guy multiple women. Maybe OG is looking to set herself up a harem.[/quote]
OG is looking for a guy harem? I’m in!
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
-
Severely limit divorce, perhaps even make it completely impossible if a couple has kids.
-
To further the goal of “propagating” children, impose a time limit for a married couple to have children. If they do not have children after X number of years, their marriage becomes automatically void. Heck, while you’re at it, require a minimum number of children.
-
In keeping with the further the goal of “propagating” children, prohibit marriages between people with disabilities where having children would be dangerous. Also prohibit marriages between old people who can no longer have children, or between couples where one has been sterilized, unless that person agrees to reverse the procedure.
-
If a couple is allowed to divorce, impose a waiting period before they can remarry. After all, these people were already “one time losers” and probably not good marriage material.
-
Make adultery and “open marriages” a crime regardless of whether the couple consents. Sorry, Pushharder, you’re going to jail.[/quote]
You’re trying to complicate a uncomplicated fact of nature. Your objection, based on my justification of recognizing hetero marriage–if recognizing any form of marriage–assumes I’d have to agree to micromanagement in order to acheive the desired end…the propogation of our citizenry within an intact home, through the smallest biological naturally capable. Nature and history demonstrates your micromanagement isn’t needed. Non-sexually involved roommates, nor sexually involved homosexuals, can’t meet the goal at all. Their, the homosexuals relationship, deserves no more government recognition than the relationship between drinking buddies.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ll say it again: civil marriage (the kind that the government gives you, which is very different than how I and many people I know define our own marriages) is nothing more than a contract between two individuals that provides some basic economic rights.[/quote]
Your definition is discriminatory and bigoted since it only involves two people. More than one person can enter into a contract for economic benefits.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ll say it again: civil marriage (the kind that the government gives you, which is very different than how I and many people I know define our own marriages) is nothing more than a contract between two individuals that provides some basic economic rights.[/quote]
Your definition is discriminatory and bigoted since it only involves two people. More than one person can enter into a contract for economic benefits.[/quote]
Where would the line be drawn? If you are Fundamental Mormon, I know they are called FLDS, and this law gets over turned, then I would hire a lawyer to overturn the polygamy laws. There has to be a line in the sand. The people of California have drawn that line with the passage of Prop 8. IMO this is just another power grab by the Government stating that the votes of the people do not matter. Only the elite are allowed to make a decision. This matter was voted by the people, and not the legislature or an executive order. The people are asking for this. I hope the Supreme Court listens to the people. This one is going to the top.
The only thing that bothers me about this is that the people of California voted for Prop. 8. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it should bother you that judges can over turn the will of the people. This was put to a fair and square democratic vote and it lost. That fact should be considered above all…
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Negative, the state cannot decide whether or not to restrict marriage. [/quote]
Yes, it can, and it has for years - it restricts on the basis of age (cant be too young), number of spouses (no polygamy, etc.) and gender (one man, one woman).
You can’t just make stuff up - none of these restrictions have even been “in violation of federal law and the Constitution”. And riddle me this, if the gender restriction isn’t a valid restriction under the Constitution, are the other two?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?[/quote]
Nobody has ever explained to me why someone should have the right to marry someone of the same sex…Why should that exist?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If we were to vote through the democratic process that blacks should not marry whites, the courts would strike that down as well, and it has nothing to do with “feelings” and everything to do with preserving the sanctity of the Constitution.[/quote]
That’s because race is different and is treated differently under the Constitution.
Question: does anyone actually attempt to learn about this stuff before opining that they have the “truth” all figured out? Wikipedia is there. Embrace it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re trying to complicate a uncomplicated fact of nature. Your objection, based on my justification of recognizing hetero marriage–if recognizing any form of marriage–assumes I’d have to agree to micromanagement in order to acheive the desired end…the propogation of our citizenry within an intact home, through the smallest biological naturally capable. Nature and history demonstrates your micromanagement isn’t needed. Non-sexually involved roommates, nor sexually involved homosexuals, can’t meet the goal at all. Their, the homosexuals relationship, deserves no more government recognition than the relationship between drinking buddies.
[/quote]
Fair enough. In that case, why should a heterosexual couple in their 70s be allowed to marry? How is their relationship different from the drinking buddies you mentioned?
Next question: How does allowing two gay people the right to enter into a marriage contract hurt, prevent, or otherwise impede the ability of heterosexual couples to marry, have lots of kids, and stay married until death do them part? I never understood this one because the idea of two guys or two women getting married has absolutely zero impact on how I view my marriage. The only possible thing I can think of is that some heterosexual person out there would see two gay people get married and say, “Hey, why don’t I try that?” If that’s the case, then, first, I would seriously question whether the person was heterosexual to begin with, and second, I would seriously question whether this person’s “monkey see monkey do” attitude provided him or her with the requisite maturity to enter into a stable marriage contract.
Oh, and for the record - I don’t know what causes people to be gay, I don’t really care about gays other than I do not want to see them harmed through hate crimes, and I don’t really know what to think about gay marriage. Truth be told, I don’t care about gay marriage. However, I do care about the proper limits of government. For me, the question regarding gay marriage isn’t whether gay people should be allowed to marry, it’s what role should the government play in personal relationships?
[quote]pat wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about this is that the people of California voted for Prop. 8. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it should bother you that judges can over turn the will of the people. This was put to a fair and square democratic vote and it lost. That fact should be considered above all…[/quote]
Because, as someone already said, our form of government is not a pure democracy where the majority wins on every issue - it’s a constitutional republic where the powers of both the majority and of the government are limited. For example, I’m willing to bet that there are places in the Deep South where interracial marriage is still considered wrong, and I bet you could find a town that would have no problem prohibiting interracial marriages. Hell, I bet you could find a majority of citizens in Alabama who would vote for a state-wide ban on interracial marriage. Invoking the ideas of state’s rights and the majority will should rule, this state-wide ban should be upheld. Interestingly enough, it was a court decision that overturned Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.
I know many people have mentioned that race and homosexuality are not the same. Maybe, maybe not, but that’s not my point. My point is to illustrate the difficulty of reconciling the idea that the will of the people should prevail with the constitutional principle that individuals have certain rights that not even a majority of the people can take. The problem here is, first, what are these individual rights, and second, how do you enforce them? The answer to the second question is usually the courts. Yes, you can wait for a constitutional amendment, or you can wait for the next election and vote out the legislators who passed the law and hope the new legislators will repeal the law. Both of these methods have been used in the past. However, these methods take time, and the results are not guaranteed. So, the only real way to enforce individual rights is through the courts. And the result ain’t always guaranteed there, either, but at least it’s faster.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Fair enough. In that case, why should a heterosexual couple in their 70s be allowed to marry? How is their relationship different from the drinking buddies you mentioned?[/quote]
Because their relationship provides a model of the reproductive sexes coming together as one unit. It’s that simple.
[quote]Next question: How does allowing two gay people the right to enter into a marriage contract hurt, prevent, or otherwise impede the ability of heterosexual couples to marry, have lots of kids, and stay married until death do them part? I never understood this one because the idea of two guys or two women getting married has absolutely zero impact on how I view my marriage. The only possible thing I can think of is that some heterosexual person out there would see two gay people get married and say, “Hey, why don’t I try that?” If that’s the case, then, first, I would seriously question whether the person was heterosexual to begin with, and second, I would seriously question whether this person’s “monkey see monkey do” attitude provided him or her with the requisite maturity to enter into a stable marriage contract.
Oh, and for the record - I don’t know what causes people to be gay, I don’t really care about gays other than I do not want to see them harmed through hate crimes, and I don’t really know what to think about gay marriage. Truth be told, I don’t care about gay marriage. However, I do care about the proper limits of government. For me, the question regarding gay marriage isn’t whether gay people should be allowed to marry, it’s what role should the government play in personal relationships?[/quote]
I’ll turn the question on you. How does allowing bisexual polyamorous associations to be state recognized impact a singular marriage? How does allowing frat brothers, drinking buddies, or non-sexually involved roomates access to state marriage hurt any one specific and traditional marriage? It isn’t about one individual marriage, at one specific moment of time.