Prop 8 Overturned

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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]

I don’t see where rights were broken. There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with.

82

It seems California has picked their circus to follow as their economy collapses.

I for one do not care who gets married to who, but I do not live in california and the people of california have every right to set up their own rules, if they don’t want it they don’t want it.

83

Let’s be honest here. The libertarian goal is to destroy the state recognized institution we now know as marriage. Period. All relationships MUST be completely private, with all benefits and consequences to be sorted out through contract. That is the libertarian ideal and end game. Let’s not pretend libertarians are trying to extend the proper powers of the state to recognize and intereven in this thing we call ‘marriage.’ You guys aren’t supporting gay marriage to support state recognized gay marriage. In fact, if libertarians ever started being honest about the subject, they’d admit they support this farce for the same reasons we oppose it. That would be the further and progressive erosion of state recognized marriages. No better way to eventually get rid of this little antiquainted role for the state than to reduce it to some “rights” absurdity. One that earns little regard and respect outside of being some “right to marriage benefits for the sake of being married” social club.

84

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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]

But that was not your original objection. Earlier in the thread, you said:

An older couple who can no longer have children fits this definition exactly.

[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. [/quote]

I think your perception of marriage is clouded by its religious traditions while mine is not. I view civil marriage as simply another contract enforced by the government. That’s it. In the relationships that you identified, the parties have chosen to limit their relationship to something specific and limited. Roommates, for example, want a relationship where they share the rent and perhaps other costs, and maybe agree to clean up after themselves. That’s it. Their relationship is protected by their co-signing a lease, and perhaps a side agreement where they agree to split the costs of a house cleaner, for example. Most roommates want nothing more to do with each other beyond this. While some become friends, I’ve seen situations where roommates barely talked to one another. They certainly wouldn’t want to share each others health and dental benefits, or have visitation rights in hospitals if they became sick. The key here is that roommates have defined their relationship in a limited way (e.g., rent sharing and nothing more than that) and they have a legal mechanism to enforce this relationship (go to court and sue for unpaid rent). The problem for gays is that they want more than rent-sharing. They want, for instance, to be eligible for spousal health benefits, or to have the same rights as a spouse when making medicals decisions or visiting their partner in the hospital. The problem is that they do not currently have a mechanism to enforce the terms of their relationship to the same extent as a married couple (although I would argue that a lot can be done using wills and power of attorney such that gays could come very close to getting what they want simple by executing the right documents).

85

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s be honest here. The libertarian goal is to destroy the state recognized institution we now know as marriage. Period. All relationships MUST be completely private, with all benefits and consequences to be sorted out through contract. That is the libertarian ideal and end game. Let’s not pretend libertarians are trying to extend the proper powers of the state to recognize and intervene in this thing we call ‘marriage.’ You guys aren’t supporting gay marriage to support state recognized gay marriage for it’s sake. In fact, if libertarians ever started being honest about the subject, they’d admit they support this farce for the same reasons we oppose it. That would be the further and progressive erosion of state recognized marriages. Or, at least, making it so much harder to salvage. No better way to eventually get rid of this little antiquainted role for the state than to reduce it to some “rights” absurdity. One that earns little regard and respect outside of being some “right to marriage benefits for the sake of being married” social club. [/quote]

Why is state-recognized marriage better than a private contract? How is marriage any different than a contract? Hint: It’s not. I suppose you’re right: the libertarian goal IS, to some extent, to destroy state-recognized marriage.

No one has explained yet how allowing gays to marry will destroy marriage. Please provide evidence of this. I would argue that Anna Nicole Smith’s marriage to that billionaire did more to hurt marriage. She basically found a loophole in the prostitution laws - keep the 80-something rich guy happy and when he dies she inherits his money. This was not a marriage, it was a legalized form of prostitution, yet, I saw no public outcry over this. Why? Because even the staunchest conservative men secretly hope that they could experience the pleasures of a 20-something young lady when they get to be in their 80s. It’s complete hypocrisy.

86

[quote]pat wrote:
There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with. [/quote]

Do you really think that?

87

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Why is state-recognized marriage better than a private contract? How is marriage any different than a contract? Hint: It’s not. I suppose you’re right: the libertarian goal IS, to some extent, to destroy state-recognized marriage.[/quote]

Thank you. And then, obviously, the libertarian doesn’t (when he’s being honest) really object to our ‘slippery slope’ argument. He’s depending on it being true.

88

There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .

it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)

Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.

Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.

It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .

marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .

89

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .

it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)

Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.

Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.

It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .

marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .

[/quote]

This!

90

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .

it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)

Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.

Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.

It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .

marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .

[/quote]

It’s not a state issue , it is a religious issue, Divorce would make it a legal issue , I do not see where govenment even enters the situation

91

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with. [/quote]

Do you really think that?[/quote]

Yes. Why is where you put your dick an entitlement of some sort?

92

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .

it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)

Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.

Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.

It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .

marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .

[/quote]

hear hear!

93

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with. [/quote]

Do you really think that?[/quote]

Yes. Why is where you put your dick an entitlement of some sort?[/quote]

You are discriminating against the Lesbians. You need to include tongues, fingers, strap ons, and dildos.

94

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with. [/quote]

Do you really think that?[/quote]

Yes. Why is where you put your dick an entitlement of some sort?[/quote]

You are discriminating against the Lesbians. You need to include tongues, fingers, strap ons, and dildos. [/quote]

Fair enough, why does where you stick various appendages in to various openings give you an entitlement?

95

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Pat, do you agree that generally less laws is a better model than more laws when trying to set up a country?

If so then it would be beholden on you to come up with a reason why someone should not have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

96

What’s funny is that when the comparison is made between interracial marriage law reform and same sex marriage law reform, the homophobes bury their heads in the sand saying, “It’s different, they can’t have KIDS…blah blah blah IMMORAL! blah blah blah FAMILY VALUES! blah blah blah”. How many of you have actually MET a gay couple? Or a gay couple that has <> adopted a child? I would invite you to go beyond Wikipedia when you form an opinion - especially when those opinions involve infringing on the civil rights of other citizens.

I’m sure that being a bigot feels good, and your narrow minded view point enables the world to make perfect sense to your little brain, but whether you like it or not, society will evolve. It will evolve socially, politically, economically and culturally. That is the nature of being human. Many new ideas are rejected as being impossible, later they are accepted as being true and eventually believed to be obvious.

Take Slavery for example. A hundred or so years ago it was widely accepted. All kinds of ridiculous beliefs about blacks were prevalent. Inter-racial marriage was illegal. Eventually, after much litigation and sometimes violent social upheaval, blacks and other minorities finally gained the same rights that the majority had. Fifty years ago, you would have been arguing how “inter-racial marriage will DESTROY the fabric of marriage as we know it”. And history will have proved you wrong.

Just like history will prove you wrong about same sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. You may take your bigoted beliefs to your grave, but that’s not going to stop society from evolving and giving EQUAL rights to ALL HUMAN BEINGS under the Constitution.

97

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You may take your bigoted beliefs to your grave, but that’s not going to stop society from evolving and giving [b]EQUAL rights to ALL HUMAN BEINGS under the Constitution.[b][/quote]

So, basically, you want state recognized marriage to mean anything and everything, therefore, nothing. If you really believed the mess you just vomited up here, then that’s your stance. And being your stance, why exactly do you champion ‘marriage’ rights at all? Why do you even elevate one type of relationship–marriage–to be treated differently than the single guy and his couple of steady sex partners? Why is their, the married couple’s, lifestyle even recognized as opposed to his? Or, any other relationship between 2, 4, or 20 people. That’s NOT equal treatment!

So, you’re either just a slightly more lenient bigot and jack-booted statist than myself. Or, you’re still holding on to the libertarian subterfage of destroying state recognized marriage by making it absurd and irrelevant.

98

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You may take your bigoted beliefs to your grave, but that’s not going to stop society from evolving and giving EQUAL rights to ALL HUMAN BEINGS under the Constitution.[/quote]
Please point me to the section of the Constitution defining marriage as a right. I see several other clearly defined rights, but I guess I missed that one.

As has been said before, if you are making this “ALL HUMAN BEINGS” argument, then this so-called right must extend to all people, in any arrangement, without restriction. Otherwise, by your logic, you are violating someone’s rights.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but just because you think it is the “right” or “moral” thing to do, doesn’t mean this decision is actually good LAW and decided correctly.

99

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What’s funny is that when the comparison is made between interracial marriage law reform and same sex marriage law reform, the homophobes bury their heads in the sand saying, “It’s different, they can’t have KIDS…blah blah blah IMMORAL! blah blah blah FAMILY VALUES! blah blah blah”. How many of you have actually MET a gay couple? Or a gay couple that has <> adopted a child? I would invite you to go beyond Wikipedia when you form an opinion - especially when those opinions involve infringing on the civil rights of other citizens.

I’m sure that being a bigot feels good, and your narrow minded view point enables the world to make perfect sense to your little brain, but whether you like it or not, society will evolve. It will evolve socially, politically, economically and culturally. That is the nature of being human. Many new ideas are rejected as being impossible, later they are accepted as being true and eventually believed to be obvious.

Take Slavery for example. A hundred or so years ago it was widely accepted. All kinds of ridiculous beliefs about blacks were prevalent. Inter-racial marriage was illegal. Eventually, after much litigation and sometimes violent social upheaval, blacks and other minorities finally gained the same rights that the majority had. Fifty years ago, you would have been arguing how “inter-racial marriage will DESTROY the fabric of marriage as we know it”. And history will have proved you wrong.

Just like history will prove you wrong about same sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. You may take your bigoted beliefs to your grave, but that’s not going to stop society from evolving and giving EQUAL rights to ALL HUMAN BEINGS under the Constitution.[/quote]

Starting about halfway through, I LOL’d. And then it kept coming.

I think IrishSteel made a pretty good argument why marriage is not a civil liberty.

I think Thunderbolt made a pretty good argument why there’s a firm distinction between race and sexual preference, and how they are treated by law, with regards to the institution of marriage.

Aside from crying that the weight of history will prove prop 8 unjust, you’re not really bringing anything new to the table. Except for MASSIVELY outlandish comparison to the institution of slavery, which, curiously, was fought by many of the same religious groups that affirm the right to marry as being only between one man and one woman.

Next time, less histrionics, more substance.

100

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Why shouldnt it be?

I think it is say to save that you have the right to do pretty much anything as long as you do not harm others.

Do we have to beg a government now that they would recognize that right?

I say the civil servants get a tad uppity these days if they think that they have the right to to define their employers relationsships…