This is the most eloquent and well thought out commentary I've heard yet on the aftermath of the passing of Prop 8:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652312#27652443
Very valid points, especially the 'do unto others' part. You would think that would actually mean something to those religious organizers who worked so hard and spent so much money to pass this divisive proposition. Its is just yet another example of certain groups not practicing what they preach.
I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.
Here is the full text:
quote:
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
QuoteOriginally posted by sgrizzle
I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.
Quote
I'm not sure I do agree with that. This is the reason we have judges- not to make policy, but to judge what is lawful and/or constitutional. US Supreme Court judges have an obligation to uphold the US Constitution. If it weren't for them, we would still have segregation in place in many states, including Oklahoma. I think most of us can agree that judges stepping in to abolish segregation was the correct thing to do for the entire country, and in my opinion, that is exactly what should happen (and will happen) in regards to the issue of marriage. The states may have spoken, but if it is unconstitutional, it will be overturned in the US supreme court.
Arizona Prop 102 (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)%22) also passed last week on this subject, but it has been mad an amendment to the state constitution tha cannot be changed by the legislature or judicial areas of the state.
In my wifes business she has several gay couples for clients, and these are not people that are now coming out, they have been together from 10 years to 30+ years with the same partner. We recently attended one couples marrige in late August. The two met 30 years ago and have been faithful and monogomus ever since. I believe that they should have the opportunity to get married, and have the same benefits as everyone else. On the other side of that, if they split up, they have to go through the same divorce proceedings.
I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8. Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.
quote:
I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.
A big proponent of sending Dred Scott back to his owner eh? Any "dividing moment" that comes out of this will be a self-inflicted wound by Prop 8's proponents. People who don't have a clue how the courts work. People who have no idea what this law's ramifications are.
I don't see Prop 8 as much of a big deal. However, my guess is that Prop 8 will be overturned. There are potential grounds already to overturn it, then there's the effects down the road. Until Prop 8 is overturned, it will never go away. People act like they can codify anything and get away with it, that's not entirely true.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8. Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.
I've read a couple of statisticians unpack the voting numbers. Even if you subtracted all of the black vote from the equation, there was no guarantee that Prop 8 would have been rejected.
I noticed the Mormon Church has been taking most of the heat for lobbying hard for Prop 8's passage in recent days. Given that church's long history of racism and, ahem, tolerance of other types of unconventional marriages, those barbs seem justified.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8. Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.
Wow.
What about those that are caught inbetween?
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj120/graduationdai/in-living-color.jpg)
Is that a question or an excuse to post your cute little picture?
Actually being a Black Gay man has a lot of special challenges. There has been lots of press and discussion of the fact that the Black Community is in denial about Homosexuality and that makes it difficult for Black Gay men -- especially in regards to HIV.
Now the broader Gay Community has also been known to discriminate against Blacks and Women, for all practical purposes banning them from their bars with restrictive rules aimed at keeping them out.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Is that a question or an excuse to post your cute little picture?
Actually being a Black Gay man has a lot of special challenges. There has been lots of press and discussion of the fact that the Black Community is in denial about Homosexuality and that makes it difficult for Black Gay men -- especially in regards to HIV.
Now the broader Gay Community has also been known to discriminate against Blacks and Women, for all practical purposes banning them from their bars with restrictive rules aimed at keeping them out.
It was a question, your comment was so very (pardon the expression) black and white and almost sounded like you were predicting some sort of gay vs African-American political clan war. While anger I've come to expect out of you HT, I did expect you to be a lot less in love with labels.
The chance to recall one of the greatest movie review duets ever was a complete bonus.
I'm talking about a possible split in a liberal coalition.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8. Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.
Wow.
What about those that are caught inbetween?
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj120/graduationdai/in-living-color.jpg)
Looks like Hometown "Hated it!"
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm talking about a possible split in a liberal coalition.
I'm skeptical of that. There may be no love lost between the two groups, but I don't think it threatens the structure of the party. After all, they've coexisted as fellow Democrats for years, conflicts and biases notwithstanding. This pushes things a little more to the brink but it's also not something that can be laid at the feet of an exclusive part of the Democratic coalition. A whole lot of other people voted for these odious things, too.
I'm actually in favor of Prop 8 being challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. They will (hopefully) settle it once and for all, and we'll finally have some national guidance. I'm optimistic that -- even though our court has a conservative bias now -- they will vote to expand rights rather than curtail them.
1. Everyone hates judicial activists - when they are not adjudicating action that you approve of.
Right to privacy - judicially created.
Enforcement of constitutional rights at the state level - judicially created
Desegregation - judicially created
3 branch checks and balances - judicially created (see Marbury v. Madison)
Federal government as social arbitrator (the new deal) - radically approved by the courts (after threatening to stack the court and remove judges)
Right to weapons - judicial activism shooting down state laws (DC gun ban)
quasi pro-choice - judicial activism
- - -
I'm guessing about 50/50 you love and hate judicial activism. It's just not as simple as the politicians wish it was. Sometimes majority rule is a bad thing - the majority of Saud's are OK with stoning women for not wearing a veil in public. The majority of southerners were OK lynching the occasional "******" who got out of line and did something stupid like vote.
Not advocating FOR judicial activism, just saying it has a place.
- - - - -
2) Would someone against gay marriage please make a case for legally banning it?
Honestly, I'm at a loss (though I imagine you will be able to pick out the tongue in cheeks parts throughout). Why do you care if Adam marries Steve? Just as I don't care if my neighbor brings home women from the bar I am not attracted to, I don't care if Adam brings home some guy from the bar. It may interest me in a tabloid or gossip sense of the word, but certainly not to the level of caring.
a) No personal effect
In the bedroom he can sleep in a different bed from his wife. He can have schedule sexual encounters with his girlfriend in their fence off hot tub in the back. Or he can have a revolving door of large busted sodomy loving bar sluts. No real issues there.
Likewise, if my neighbor imports a bride from Singapore it does not effect my life. If he chooses to marry a black women, live with someone and not marry, or join the priest hood and go celibate. It does not effect me.
On a personal level, it does not effect me.
b) Tax consequences negligible
Any tax consequence would be negligible. It's that simple. Assuming 10% of the population is gay, and a representative 50% of them got married - that's a 5% increase in married couples. Pretending again that a couple saves 10% in taxes by being married (most savings from marriage actual come from children, mortgages, etc.)- that is a .5% decrease in overall income tax revenues. By definition, negligible.
Evidence exists that there will be a net GAIN in tax revenue. Married couples would have a single home and thus each qualify for less deductions (even if they owned separate homes each could not claim it).
Aside from the effects, is that really your argument? Gay marriage would cost too much money? Then why have any tax incentives for marriage - it isn't to encourage procreation, that's what child tax credits are for. And if this is your ultimate issue - then offer gay marriage with a waiver of tax benefits. Separate but equal.
c) Moral fabric
There are gay people. Some people think that is morally wrong. That thought does not change the fact that there are gay people. Neither does forbidding gay marriage.
In every group you have radical members. You have frat boys that hunt women for sport. You have women that are bar sluts. And you have gays that are man whores (or whatever the clever lesbian equivalent would be). Yep. Big surprise. For some reason this is pointed out as if to prove that gay people are inherently dysfunctional in a society. I fail to see the correlation.
Most other members of society will "grow up" and "settle down" at some point. So even if you think gay people are more prone to a promiscuous lifestyle (which I am in no way advocating) logic entails you support a outlet to suppress such behavior. Marriage = monogamy. Thus, if you are concerned about the moral well being of the country and believe homosexual promiscuity is somehow paramount to that cause, gay marriage would seem to provide relief to you...
d) choice
...unless of course you harbor the belief that with enough oppression homosexuals will choose to no longer be gay. To wit I ask if you have ever decided to turn straight. The concept of having sexual relations with another man is, to put it mildly, not appealing to me at all. I do not recall making a conscious choice in this regard. Thus, I surmise that most others have NOT made a choice in this matter.
Genetically, sociologically, and evolutionarily speaking then, why are there homosexuals? I have no idea. History long records the existence of such (the Isle of Lesbos, huh, huh) and to varying degrees accepted and banished the practice. But in the here and now homosexuals persist randomly disbursed in society with no known genetic, social, or other "cause." The persistence throughout would seem to indicate a lack of choice.
I agree it provides an interesting evolutionary question, but not one particularly relevant to banning gay marriage. Likewise, if one were inclined to believe it was a disease, genetic, or a learned behavior - then gay marriage would support your goal of eradication. You see, a married gay man would not have children and would not pass on his genes. Thus, coupling gay men together in marriage is probably our best bet at eradicating the "problem."
However, the basic premise of discouraging a behavior by oppressing it while said behavior has no "victim" seems inherently wrong.
e) Employment rights
Another argument is that employers would be forced to grant insurance to the spouse of a gay person. To wit - they are currently forced to give insurance to the spouse of a straight person. So what?
How many shame marriages exist to get insurance among straight people? Some, but not many - certainly not most. The notion that this is a driving reason is simply erroneous.
Likewise, don't we have an insurance "crisis" in America? Don't most people have to PAY for their spouse to join their coverage? Is it in the interest of corporate America to discourage marriage in general? It seems to me spouses are already worked into the system - what genitals they have doesn't seem to be that big of an issue.
And finally, if this is the killer issue draft a separate but equal clause exempting such parameters.
f) Fear and Religion
Which leaves us to the two actual underlying leaders for a ban on gay marriage. Either a fear of homosexuals for some reason or the preachings of a religious institution. The fear argument clearly lacks merit, as I am loath to surmise a dire end from legal gay marriage.
Perhaps other minorities fear giving rights to homosexuals because of a perception that it would reduce their own rights or entitlements. Perhaps that fear extends to the population at large. Nonetheless, any such notion is without basis and selfish. Hardly meritorious of a law.
So the heart of the matter: religion. Most people that are steadfast against gay marriage hold such a belief by religious conviction. First and foremost - I am not aware of any edict, proposition, nor judicial order that would require a any religious institution to perform any marriage. I am not aware of any religious person that would be required to be a part of, participate in, or even attend a gay wedding - so the only merit to the argument is that your religious conviction should be able to dictate the behavior of everyone else.
(Un)Fortunately your religious conviction has no more right to rule than my religious conviction - which hold that a person has the right to do as they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
If you hold that a persons actions must conform to your chosen religious beliefs, and such should be reflecting in the law - then you seek a theocratic state. A set of laws that have no place in America. And should we get a theocratic state as some fundamentalists desire, surely they would ensue to kill each other off over who's theocracy should reign supreme (see, ie, the Middle East or Reformation Europe).
Basically, your religious beliefs are not a logical justification nor legal grounds for hindering the actions of others. Just as a Muslim advocacy group should not be allowed to rule by Sharia and mandate a prohibition on female drivers (rule the day!), a Christian group should not be able to dictate marriage policy on religious grounds. Nor does religion hold a monopoly on the word "marriage," which holds no particular religious connotation (here is where a zealous individual receipts a bible verse to prove that marriage is holy, faithfully failing to see the circular logic inherent to such statements).
Remember - just as you are sure you were born into the right religion... so is everyone else. And no matter what religion you chose, there are more members of the "other" category than members of your group. Their creation stories (aliens killed by atomic bombs in volcanoes), holy visions (so an angel showed magic gold tablets to this guy), deities (an elephant god, really?), teachings (newspaper cartoon = death) and belief systems (other religious views have merit? Bah!) are worthy of ridicule; but our stories are holy and SHALL NOT be questioned.
- - -
Which leaves what logical argument against gay marriage?
If you just don't like it, go ahead and say so. If you think your religious beliefs should be enforced by law and are better than other religious beliefs - have the guts to admit it.
I'm a logical person. Logically speaking I can come to no conclusion that leads me to believe marriage should be restricted to a particular matched set of genitals. Nor even a reason it should warrant so much attention.
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
One argument I can see is that everything to date has been "legal right now" or "illegal right now"
There are a lot of adjustment to be made to medical benefits, inheritance law, marriage license forms, etc. We allow people years to adjust to no-smoking rules and immigration reform but I haven't seen a proposal that allows for any kind of phase-in or transition period to allow for people to address all of these situations. The company I work for is making changes to their medical and life insurance plans but they change their plans on an annual basis, not based on a judge's calendar or election calendar.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me:
Prop 8 is not likely to stand long, and even if it does, I still think it's unlikely that Prop 8 will have much of a serious effect. It only adds:
quote:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." wiki (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)%22)
Also, you can read up on California's Domestic Partnership structure here: wiki (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California%22)
As Schwarzenegger said
quote:
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said about the same-sex marriage ban. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area." Boston Globe (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/schwarzenegger_proposition_8_fight_isnt_over/%22)
If I were a moralistic moron I might get a woody. If I were a part of the homosexual community, I'd be putting my thumb on my politicians, but not worrying much. This is no where near "over."
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me:
Prop 8 is not likely to stand long...
I thought this was a constitutional amendment whose language was patterned after the Calif. Supreme Court's opinion that triggered this proposition. Also, do you really believe this U.S. Supreme Court is going to strike this down?
Geez Conan, how do you define "judicial activism"? You make it sound as if every decision by the Supremes is judicial activism rather than just simple judicial review
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Also, do you really believe this U.S. Supreme Court is going to strike this down?
Possibly. There are too many factors. I'm not sure that Prop 8 will actually make it to the US Supreme Court, or what shape Prop 8 would be in if it managed to get there. It's far more complicated than that.
And again, if Prop 8 does manage to make it through all processes intact, the effects will be marginalized. It's more of a "moral victory" of sorts, possibly even Pyrrhic. "Whatever you do, just don't call it marriage." That's the sum of this law. The more I think about it, the more tragically comical it gets.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I thought this was a constitutional amendment whose language was patterned after the Calif. Supreme Court's opinion that triggered this proposition. Also, do you really believe this U.S. Supreme Court is going to strike this down?
It's more likely to be struck down by the California Supreme Court as too radical an amendment to not go through the legislature.
I strongly doubt the federal Supremes would find in the logical way if it were brought before them. One person should be able to marry any one other person. Period. Anything else is discriminatory. Either that or the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
They would somehow figure out a way that it's not a violation of equal protection to deny some people the right to marry some other people.
Personally, I think the Prop 8 language is at least less offensive than similar language used in most other states that also takes away rights from unmarried people of any orientation, but that's probably because it actually affects me directly.
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
Gay marriage?
Haven't they suffered enough?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
It's a federal issue when taxes, estates, and property law come in to play. As tulsa1803 said above, he and his partner can exchange vows in a church any old time, but he can never have spousal rights. That's why it's a federal issue, at least to start.
If the states are the primary arbiter, you'll get a patchwork of incompatible laws which create confusion and in the end don't address the fundamental financial inequality . . . which is what this is at heart all about.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
The Federal issue with marriage is that each state is required to recognize the legal decisions of other states. Hence, my Iowa marriage is legal in Oklahoma. Which raises interesting points on the issue at hand, when Oklahoma doesn't want to recognize that there marriage between them there homosexuals.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
The Federal issue with marriage is that each state is required to recognize the legal decisions of other states. Hence, my Iowa marriage is legal in Oklahoma. Which raises interesting points on the issue at hand, when Oklahoma doesn't want to recognize that there marriage between them there homosexuals.
Also this ^^^^^^^^^
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
If it is not a federal issue, then how can federal law prohibit polygamy? Why wouldn't states be able to determine that?
In my opinion, the government was wrong to ever assert itself into the definition of "marriage." For the government, "marriage" should be viewed as nothing more than a contract between consenting adults. Really, that is what a marriage is--a contract that defines certain rights between adults. Apart from assuring that the contract was enter into fairly, the government shouldn't have any more to say.
The problem, though, is that the public cannot seem to separate the contractual aspect of marriage from the biblical aspect. Whether the union of two people is recognized in the eyes of God is up to each person's religion, not the government.
I don't know if would possible, but the solution I see is that the government stops recognizing any "marriages" regardless of the sexes involved. Instead, the government should recognize only "civil unions," provided they were entered into by consenting adults. Have a civil ceremony to validate the contract which would be sufficient to ensure the contractual rights of the parties involved. If a couple wants to "marry", they have to find a church that will do so. Leave marriage to the church/synagogue/mosque.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
The Federal issue with marriage is that each state is required to recognize the legal decisions of other states. Hence, my Iowa marriage is legal in Oklahoma. Which raises interesting points on the issue at hand, when Oklahoma doesn't want to recognize that there marriage between them there homosexuals.
Also this ^^^^^^^^^
CF, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supremes held in a same sex marriage case out of Minnesota that such did not present a substantial federal question. My thought is that the "full faith and credit" clause, whereby states have to essentially respect records and judicial decisions of their sister states, would be the only way the federal courts would intervene. However, if this clause would prohibit states from not recognizing same sex marriage, it would seem that the Supremes had the opportunity to determine so in Baker. After all, this was the Warren court. Still, we have seen federal law expanding into the issue of family rights, most recently in this state with the homosexual adoption case (Crutcher, I think?).
Of course, we have not talked about DOMA, which has been in effect for over 11 years and I do think has been found unconstitutional.
I know it appears that I am not taking a firm position on this issue, primarily because I do not care. Same sex couples that marry will not impact my marriage in the least. My point is that it it would be delusional to think that the Supremes would absolutely get involved in this matter. The people of California spoke out and voted to prohibit same sex marriage in their state in direct response to their Supreme Court's ruling. The fact that this is California, hardly a right wing, religious nutjob state, does say something I suppose.
The Minnesota Court in Baker affirmed (in 1971) that a state is not required by the constitution to issue a same-sex marriage license. The Supreme Court denied cert. because there was a lack of a significant Federal question. Thus, unless changed by the Supreme Court a state refusal to issue gay marriage licenses is not a Federal Question.
HOWEVER, one could argue that in light of recent Federal Attempts to do the same and the passage of a multitude of laws expressly authorizing such, it has become a Federal Question. Consider that in 1971 no state issued gay marriage licenses (civil unions, call them what you will) - thus the merits of the claim as a full faith and credit issue was not relevant. Currently, that issue has come to fruition.
Where a conflict exists among state laws, and that conflict equates to an uncertain enforcement of a fundamental contract and the possible degradation of citizen rights while moving between states - it has become a Federal Question on the basis of the full faith and credit clause.
At least... in my 5 minute analysis.
lol@lawyer shoptalk.
You guys are such eggheads.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The Minnesota Court in Baker affirmed (in 1971) that a state is not required by the constitution to issue a same-sex marriage license. The Supreme Court denied cert. because there was a lack of a significant Federal question. Thus, unless changed by the Supreme Court a state refusal to issue gay marriage licenses is not a Federal Question.
HOWEVER, one could argue that in light of recent Federal Attempts to do the same and the passage of a multitude of laws expressly authorizing such, it has become a Federal Question. Consider that in 1971 no state issued gay marriage licenses (civil unions, call them what you will) - thus the merits of the claim as a full faith and credit issue was not relevant. Currently, that issue has come to fruition.
Where a conflict exists among state laws, and that conflict equates to an uncertain enforcement of a fundamental contract and the possible degradation of citizen rights while moving between states - it has become a Federal Question on the basis of the full faith and credit clause.
At least... in my 5 minute analysis.
For a second there I thought you were going to roll with the Contracts Clause argument. I do not think we disagree in priciple. I think we are as lost as to what is going to happen as the non "eggheads" on this forum.
Excuse me but
BARF
Well... you can see it somewhat as a contracts argument. But I think we both agree that would be skirting the actual issues. Marriage is just a contract, but it is one with special rights and privileges granted by the state. Just like a multi-member LLC is really just a contract, the benneficial effect and enforcement of the special nature of that contract is granted by the state.
Hence, the general contract theory seems to fall short. And, if that is what is really wanted - you can contract most aspects of marriage. A will, a medical directive, joint tenancy, power of attorney. I don't think that is the main objective of most gay-rights advocates.
So yeah, we're both at a loss. But it will be interesting to watch the fight. I'm still highly amused (bemused?) that there are people as interested in preventing gay marriage as the people interested in gay marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
If it is not a federal issue, then how can federal law prohibit polygamy? Why wouldn't states be able to determine that?
State legislatures do outlaw polygamy. In Oklahoma, bigamy is a felony. See, 21 O.S. Sec. 881-883. As far as federal law, other than inthe context of interstate transportation, do you have a statute outlawing bigamy?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm still highly amused (bemused?) that there are people as interested in preventing gay marriage as the people interested in gay marriage.
Perhaps the best analysis on this issue in this thread.
They have been having gay marriages in Massachussetts for some time now and I honestly don't see how it has affected my life in any way.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
They have been having gay marriages in Massachussetts for some time now and I honestly don't see how it has affected my life in any way.
You can't see it, but we can.
For one, you've become a much snappier dresser.
Thanks for noticing.
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.
So, no. You did not hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.
So, no. You did not hear it.
Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.
So, no. You did not hear it.
Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.
I agree, there was no real point other than how they just mercilessly ripped that drama queen Olbermann.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.
Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.
So, no. You did not hear it.
Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.
I agree, there was no real point other than how they just mercilessly ripped that drama queen Olbermann.
No more of a drama queen than that repubtard, O'Reilly and his stupid 'War on Christmas' crap.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.
If it is not a federal issue, then how can federal law prohibit polygamy? Why wouldn't states be able to determine that?
State legislatures do outlaw polygamy. In Oklahoma, bigamy is a felony. See, 21 O.S. Sec. 881-883. As far as federal law, other than inthe context of interstate transportation, do you have a statute outlawing bigamy?
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy act of 1862 signed into law by Lincoln. One of the only federal laws whose sole purpose was directed to stop specific conduct of a religious group. Mormons tried to challenge the law but lost. As recently as this summer, Senator Harry Reid introduced federal legislation to help coordinate federal prosecution of polygamists.
I am not saying that I agree with polygamy, but if marriage were truly a state issue, shouldn't polygamy be as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason. He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?
After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out. I was married, I know this to be true.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.
The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?
Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason. He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?
After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out. I was married, I know this to be true.
[:O]
Did you even hear Olbermann's pathetic special comment on prop 8? You call that eloquence? That wuss sounded like he was about to cry.
And another thing, when you talk about "screamers" on the right, I guess it was just oversight that Olbermann called Bush a fascist, shouting that Bush should "shut the hell up", and calling for just about every high profile republican to resign.
Olbermann is an abject hack and phony. Using Murrow's sign off as if he could even hold Murrow's jock. Olbermann has never broadcasted while bombs drop around him like Murrow. In fact, has this guy ever been to a war torn area? Has he gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to see first hand what war is like? I can tell you one thing, O'Reilly and Hannity (whom I rarely listen to because I have a job) have been there. Heck, Laura Ingraham has gone to Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.
The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?
Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member. No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.
And, get a will. They're free. Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex. You can leave property to anyone you wish. Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
The right-wingers hate Olbermann for that EXACT reason. He's eloquent, unlike the screamers O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity...need I go on?
After a while, when you scream, people tend to tune you out. I was married, I know this to be true.
[:O]
Did you even hear Olbermann's pathetic special comment on prop 8? You call that eloquence? That wuss sounded like he was about to cry.
And another thing, when you talk about "screamers" on the right, I guess it was just oversight that Olbermann called Bush a fascist, shouting that Bush should "shut the hell up", and calling for just about every high profile republican to resign.
Olbermann is an abject hack and phony. Using Murrow's sign off as if he could even hold Murrow's jock. Olbermann has never broadcasted while bombs drop around him like Murrow. In fact, has this guy ever been to a war torn area? Has he gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to see first hand what war is like? I can tell you one thing, O'Reilly and Hannity (whom I rarely listen to because I have a job) have been there. Heck, Laura Ingraham has gone to Iraq.
Did I say I heard him? No. But, he is more eloquent on most matters than those right-wing screamers I noted. He doesn't shout people down.
And just because you go to Iraq doesn't make you an expert. Look at our current President and make your determination there.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.
The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?
Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member. No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.
And, get a will. They're free. Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex. You can leave property to anyone you wish. Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.
You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.
Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.
Azbadpuppy wrote:
"[T]here are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional."
My understanding of civil rights law is a little fuzzy. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supremes overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law because the state was not permitted to criminalize that sexual behavior. Has the Supremes declared, though, that being homosexual is a protected class similar to race/gender/age? That is the standard for constitutionality of a statute.
Now, whether something is "discriminatory" is another matter, because you know the government discriminates against classes of persons all the time. For example, think about who is required by law to register for selective service? Better yet, one cannot be president unless they are at least 35.
^^No, homosexuality is not a protected class. The majority opinion in Lawrence determine sodomy laws unconstitional based upon the right to privacy. However, O'Conner based her rationale on the equal protection portion of the constitution; in other words, because the law was directed at a group of people based upon their gender, it did involve a protected class (as I recall the law in Texas only made sodomy illegal for persons of the same sex). Following O'Conner's reasoning, then prohibiting couples from marrying based upon their sex could violate the equal protection provision of the Constitution. I don't think any courts have picked up upon O'Conner's thinking, though.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.
The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?
Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member. No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.
And, get a will. They're free. Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex. You can leave property to anyone you wish. Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.
You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.
Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.
1. What laws are you talking about (other then same sex marriage)?
2. If you die without a will, no matter who you are or what sex you are, your estate goes to probate.
3. Funny. I have questions and you immediately assume I hate gay people. That's too bad. I'm actually on the fence for gay marriage. I just think hospital visitation and estate planning are week issues to make the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The thing that gets me: Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple. I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man. Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that. ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc.... Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay. All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need. I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits". I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere. Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies. What's the big deal??
Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not? Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.
And passing on property upon death will come down to a will. Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.
A couple more points:
1. There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.
2. Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court. The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.
Because gay partners are not considered 'family' under most states laws, they therefore are not allowed hospital visitation rights by most hospitals, since hospitals may only allow visitation by 'legal' family members. So in other words, if my partner of five years falls gravely ill and slips into a coma, the hospital can deny me the right to see him, under the laws of my state. Fair? You decide.
The issue of passing on property has to do with NOT having a will in place. Most states have a default estate plan that basically ignores or in some cases work specifically against same sex couples. Again, in other words, if I die tomorrow, the state I live in does not recognize my committed relationship legally, therefore my partner of five years and I are considered strangers, and since I am young, I haven't created a will, so my estate under the default provisions would pass on to his parents. If we were able to be legally married by the state, by default the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Are you starting to see the point now?
Of course everyone should have estate planning in place, but many people do not and no one expects to die tomorrow. Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
There is no law that a hospital has to allow visitation by a family member. No matter the issue of gay marriage, it will not mandate a hospital allow visitation by any one particular person.
And, get a will. They're free. Don't try to make us believe that, if you have a will, the state will not allow it simply because you left property to someone of the same sex. You can leave property to anyone you wish. Gay marriage will not stop anyone from contesting a will.
You don't get it. Right now, there are laws in place to KEEP same sex couples from having the same rights as hetero couples. That is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Do you really think any US citizen should be punished by the government because a loved one died without the chance to get a will in place? Talk about Fascism.
Actually I think you do get it, you just choose to see it your way because of your religious beliefs and/or your dislike of gay people. You're entitled to your opinion, but no one is entitled to step on my rights as an equal American citizen. That is why it will change eventually and the US Supreme court will step in.
1. What laws are you talking about (other then same sex marriage)?
2. If you die without a will, no matter who you are or what sex you are, your estate goes to probate.
3. Funny. I have questions and you immediately assume I hate gay people. That's too bad. I'm actually on the fence for gay marriage. I just think hospital visitation and estate planning are week issues to make the argument.
I understand what you are saying, but I answered your questions as to why the laws are currently biased against same sex couples. Your answer is just to take care of it before anything bad happens and you won't have an issue. Well, in a perfect world that would be great. However, not everyone is able to do that, and the difference is that when straight couples don't take care of things in advance the law doesn't work against them. Married legal spouses automatically have the right for hospital visitation, unrecognized spouses do not. Homes transfer automatically to a state-recognized legal spouse- no so in the case of same sex couples. Same sex couples have to make
special provisions to protect themselves. I'm not sure why it's so hard to see the bias here, unless of course you have other issues or religious beliefs, which really shouldn't have anything to with the law anyway.
Pardon me if I take this issue personally, but put yourself in my shoes. What if someone was trying to take away your right to marry and to receive the same benefits as everyone else, purely for their so called 'moral' or religious beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.
I totally get that, and I do have all of my interests in order. I was speaking hypothetically to show that the laws are currently such that if you pass unexpectedly without provisions in place, the legally recognized spouse will not lose their house, but spouses not legally recognized could lose their home with no questions asked in most states currently. Having to make special provisions to protect yourself against unfair laws may be the reality, but it doesn't make it right. The fact that same sex couples aren't even given the
chance to be able to make their status legal is offensive and unfair.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Do you really think it is right for the state to take away my partner's house because it was in my name, and give it to someone else just because our relationship isn't, through no fault of our own, legally recognized?
Just transfer an interest of your home to your partner or get your home in joint tenancy. It should pass to your partner as a matter of law upon your death. After all, that's what straight married couples do.
Having to make special provisions to protect yourself against unfair laws may be the reality, but it doesn't make it right. The fact that same sex couples aren't even given the chance to be able to make their status legal is offensive and unfair.
I agree with that. Good discussion.
On polygamy...
Polygamy is banned by state and federal law, the pretense is tax purposes as well as intestate (without a will) succession. The law simply does not handle multiple spouse arrangements in those instances. Also, it is the archaic understanding that a man could take advantage of women by having multiple wives that are unaware why moving about the county (women can't take care of themselves remember, back in the day abandoning ones family and moving west was not unheard of), instead of a notice or co-signature requirement, they ban it. Right or wrong, that's why it is illegal.
It is criminal because a marriage is a contract endorsed by the state. That contract is only allowed to exist between 2 people exclusively at any one time. Hence, if you have multiple legal marriages it is a fraud on the government.
It is NOT illegal to have religious marriages between multiple parties nor to live together as if married. The crime is to have multiple legal marriages on the books.
In my world, this practice would be legal also. There are many social as well as family issues IMHO that are unsettling (not the least of which, if Bill Gates takes 1,000 wives because he can afford to... that's 1000 men who will have no wife), but there are no compelling reasons to ban the practice.
Even the religious argument doesn't work well here. Jews had multi wives until their omnipotent god changes his mind. He changed his mind and allowed Muslims to have multiple wives, until some sects decided that wasn't cool. He then changed his mind again and allowed Mormons to have multiple wives, until it was unpopular and he changed his mind again. If God is so confused on the issue, why would the US Government get it right the first time?
/someone talk my wife into polygamy, then talk Ellen Page into it (named the first young actor that came to mind... insert whomever you want)
Those damned nutjobs who are completely out of touch with the mainstream (wait, its California), and prop 8/DOMA heading to the Supremes. See, this is how the process works with controversial issues, and it happens in other states besides Oklahoma.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE8B617420121207
I am perplexed why the high court took the case, but am interested to find out. Very far reaching implications perhaps, beyond marriage. Could be some new states rights law coming down.
Quote from: guido911 on December 07, 2012, 08:31:41 PM
Those damned nutjobs who are completely out of touch with the mainstream (wait, its California), and prop 8/DOMA heading to the Supremes. See, this is how the process works with controversial issues, and it happens in other states besides Oklahoma.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE8B617420121207
I am perplexed why the high court took the case, but am interested to find out. Very far reaching implications perhaps, beyond marriage. Could be some new states rights law coming down.
California has a small population o Liberal Elite (Progressives) that live in/on government. It has a larger population of people who have found themselves dependent and supportive of this social system, keeping the elite in power. . .BUT the vast majority of the population is made up of hard working men and women with conservative social values, and immigrants with even stronger conservative social values. Many have belief systems that recognize MARRIAGE as a religious bond instead of a simple "civil union."
As a libertarian I think that marriage is an issue outside of government, so this whole argument is silly. . .but it is nonetheless important, because personal freedom has become so tied to our 7,000 page tax code, and therefore finance laws, and therefore privacy laws that we find ourselves in a position where we have given up the freedom of how we choose to live our lives to government. If gay marriage is wrong, let the individuals engaged in it discover that, it shouldn't' be legislated by others if it causes no harm to others.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. – Lysander Spooner
At least this represents an excellent opportunity to teach another libertarian lesson.
The office of the government is not to confer happiness, but to give men the opportunity to work out happiness for themselves. – William Ellery Channing
Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner. – James Fenimore Cooper