Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Recommended Posts

Really? Society created the courts to decide what a marriage is?

In most societies, courts decide cases based on law - they do not make the law. Now which category does deciding what a marriage is fall into: deciding a case based on what the law is, or deciding what the law should be?

The vast majority of societies in history have defined it as one man and one woman. But your point does raise again the question I asked before, that if it is discrimination to deny marriage to people of the same gender (even though marriage has almost never been defined that way), why is it not discrimination to deny marriage to unions of more than two people?

The point of bringing in every known society in history is that, when one does, a clear pattern is seen - a pattern which points to natural law.

I can't believe I never noticed your avatar was Citizen Kane!

Regarding unions of more than two people... that was clearly addressed in the decision.

"Natural law" ... the concept of humans wearing clothing is not natural. The concept of going to work in a concrete building is not natural. But we do not sit naked in the middle of grass fields trying to figure out how to launch the space shuttle into space, dig oil wells, or whatever it is you do for a living*.

Then there is this concept that somehow gay people just came out of blue, over the past 30 years, trying to change the "natural order" of the universe. Gay and lesbian people have been around just as long as straight people, thousands and thousands of years, and by that definition of centuries-long co-existence, have to be part of the natural order of things.

EDIT: *John Corvino.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

We are not the only species who choose a mate for life. And those that do, do it better than we do. I still say it is too easy to get married. Gay or straight, you should have to run the gauntlet to get the privilege, otherwise you make a mockery of it and end up wasting taxpayers money - either with divorce court or prosecutors and judges to try you for your own idiotic version of divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just be happy some of us take the "natural cradle" of life seriously.
That natural cradle is why you are here today. A man and woman get married to continue it.

No matter how hard they try, two men or two women together can't.

There's no danger of humans running out of willing breeding pairs, and marriage is hardly a precondition for reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

I wholeheartedly believe that monogamy is not the natural state of being for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Society created the courts to decide what a marriage is?

Did I stutter? Society created courts to, among other things, decide the constitutionality of laws. That includes laws about marriage.

In most societies, courts decide cases based on law - they do not make the law. Now which category does deciding what a marriage is fall into: deciding a case based on what the law is, or deciding what the law should be?

Both. Those societies you mention that can't decide the constitutionality of laws have no constitutions. Our society created a constitution so we wouldn't be like them.

The vast majority of societies in history have defined it as one man and one woman. But your point does raise again the question I asked before, that if it is discrimination to deny marriage to people of the same gender (even though marriage has almost never been defined that way), why is it not discrimination to deny marriage to unions of more than two people?

Because 3 is greater than 2? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the presence or absence of a single Y chromosome. Saying that it is discrimination for the law to prohibit a woman from marrying a woman when it allows a man to marry a woman doesn't say anything about polygamy.

The point of bringing in every known society in history is that, when one does, a clear pattern is seen - a pattern which points to natural law.

:lol: If we used "natural law" based on the history of man, we'd have slaves and sell women for cows. Human law is created by humans to serve their needs. Natural law is all about quarks and stuff.

I can't believe I never noticed your avatar was Citizen Kane!

"The words of Meme Foster Bag are a menace to every working man in this land. He is today what he has always been - and always will be - a Fascist!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wholeheartedly believe that monogamy is not the natural state of being for humans.

Ok, so it's not natural, but are you saying the "natural state" is better? Lots of things are not the "natural state" of humans, I don't see how that matters at all. In a natural state, if I see someone taking my stuff, I get to kill them, keep my stuff and take theirs. In a natural state, the bigger, stronger man gets whatever woman he wants, whenever he wants. "Natural" or not, monogamy is a pivotal part of society and family. If there are kids involved, it's definitely not the only way, but I think it's the preferred way for having the stability needed to raise a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so it's not natural, but are you saying the "natural state" is better? Lots of things are not the "natural state" of humans, I don't see how that matters at all. In a natural state, if I see someone taking my stuff, I get to kill them, keep my stuff and take theirs. In a natural state, the bigger, stronger man gets whatever woman he wants, whenever he wants. "Natural" or not, monogamy is a pivotal part of society and family. If there are kids involved, it's definitely not the only way, but I think it's the preferred way for having the stability needed to raise a child.

No, I agree that modern notions of monogamy are the best way to raise children. (especially ones as cute as yours).

I do, however, think that monogamy in the sexual context is, for the most part, unnatural. We overcome the whoredog urge because it benefits us socially to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "natural" is at best meaningless, at worst poisonous. If you understand that humans are just another animal, there's nothing "unnatural" about anything we do. In fact, the universe is completely natural, making the word and its antonym are useless.

If you think of humans as somehow less "natural" than other animals, you set up a dangerous world view where we're special or separate from everything else. That sort of thinking can lead to all sorts of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We overcome the whoredog urge because it benefits us socially to do so.

Speak for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose since we are all beating up H-Town's statements, it should be pointed out that many societies have adopted polygamous relationships, and entire villages have raised children. The Inuit were generally not monogamous. Because of the small breeding pool, monogamy could have been disastrous. The harsh conditions made sharing of many things advantageous. Even today, Huskies and Malamute dogs tend not to be loyal to their masters only, but will wander off with nearly anyone.

If one limits his study of humanity to only Europeans, a belief that humans are monogamous could take hold, but even then, monogamy was imposed more by the church than the people themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally wouldn't lend much credit to a religious institution, with that kind of "natural cradle" position, that requires men of the cloth to be celibate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I stutter? Society created courts to, among other things, decide the constitutionality of laws. That includes laws about marriage.

I'll refer you to my original post. The way in which the court decided the "constitutionality" of this law involved an arbitrary defining of what marriage is on the court's part, something that should properly be left to the majority.

The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the presence or absence of a single Y chromosome. Saying that it is discrimination for the law to prohibit a woman from marrying a woman when it allows a man to marry a woman doesn't say anything about polygamy.

Sure it does. It involves defining what marriage is. The court said that same-sex couples had a "right to marry," even though marriage had only previously meant something that involves a man and a woman. If a union that wasn't covered by the original definition can arbitrarily be given a "right to marry" by the courts, why can't a polygamous union?

There are some pretty major attributes of human beings that are only caused by the presence or absence of a single chromosome. Seems pretty irrelevant.

:lol: If we used "natural law" based on the history of man, we'd have slaves and sell women for cows. Human law is created by humans to serve their needs. Natural law is all about quarks and stuff.

Neither of those examples even comes close to the universality of the belief, in both present and past cultures, that marriage is something that unites people of different gender. Natural law really has very little to do with quarks.

If we are going to discuss "Natural Law", shouldn't we talk about the fact that monogamous relationships themselves violate "natural law"?

Under what conception of natural law that has ever been written do monogamous relationships constitute a violation?

Regarding unions of more than two people... that was clearly addressed in the decision.

No it wasn't - see my first post.

"Natural law" ... the concept of humans wearing clothing is not natural. The concept of going to work in a concrete building is not natural. But we do not sit naked in the middle of grass fields trying to figure out how to launch the space shuttle into space, dig oil wells, or whatever it is you do for a living*.

I'm not sure you understand what natural law is. It is a moral norm recognized innately by people as having universal claim, and being involved in the plan of nature. You are welcome to ridicule those concepts if you like, but societies that adopt the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong are generally chaotic and short-lived.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally wouldn't lend much credit to a religious institution, with that kind of "natural cradle" position, that requires men of the cloth to be celibate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll refer you to my original post. The way in which the court decided the "constitutionality" of this law involved an arbitrary defining of what marriage is on the court's part, something that should properly be left to the majority.

Why should it be left to the majority? Are you OK with the majority outlawing "miscegenation"?

Sure it does. It involves defining what marriage is. The court said that same-sex couples had a "right to marry," even though marriage had only previously meant something that involves a man and a woman. If a union that wasn't covered by the original definition can arbitrarily be given a "right to marry" by the courts, why can't a polygamous union?

That isn't what the ruling I'm reading says (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia...ews/S147999.pdf). The ruling says:

"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

and:

"... in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should it be left to the majority? Are you OK with the majority outlawing "miscegenation"?

No I'm not, but miscegenation can legitimately be called a limitation of the "right to marry" to couples based on race. In this case, the definition of marriage itself is being changed, from an opposite-sex union to a union of any two people, without the public's consent.

That isn't what the ruling I'm reading says (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia...ews/S147999.pdf). The ruling says:

"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

and:

"... in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not, but miscegenation can legitimately be called a limitation of the "right to marry" to couples based on race. In this case, the definition of marriage itself is being changed, from an opposite-sex union to a union of any two people, without the public's consent.

You can say the same about miscegenation. Before it was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, marriage in some states was defined to be between members of the same race. If you're going to take that view then same sex marriage is a limitation on the right to marry based on gender and/or sexual preference.

It's funny that they say "our state now recognizes" when all that they really mean is "our court now recognizes." If marriage in our society has been defined as a union of people of opposite sex, and the court says that it is discrimination to deny marriage to same-sex couples, that most definitely involves a redefinition of what marriage is, from a uniting of people of opposite gender to a uniting of any two people.

Read the rest of the ruling. They really mean "our state now recognizes".

As far as denying rights, as long as same-sex couples can enter a "civil union" that has all the same benefits of marriage (which I support), I don't really see what right is being denied. The right to be called married? But marriage is a union of people of opposite gender. How is not calling two people of the same gender a union of people of opposite gender denying them any right? ...unless one redefines what a marriage is, but that should be left to the people, not the courts.

The court ruled that calling it marriage only for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. California's constitution prevents using your definition of marriage.

I don't see any discrimination here.

Then look again. You want to prohibit a man from marrying a man while allowing a woman to marry a man. You want to base that entirely on gender, with no other qualifying factors. That's gender discrimination.

It's pretty near universal, and of all the major regions of the world, America and Europe are (if I'm not mistaken) the two in which this question is most in doubt (and only among a small minority even there). But I will concede that simple majority of numbers, no matter how overwhelming, does not mean that that majority is correct. On a question of definition though, I say the majority should rule.

Pretty near universal isn't universal.

How can you justify objective standards of morality without some concept of natural law?

There are many ways. You can measure the benefit, damage and risk, for one.

As far as the different versions, I believe that a clear commonality and convergence of those different versions can be seen. It is in those commonalities, among countless cultures spanning vast stretches of time and space, that I suggest we start building our conceptions of natural law.

And I suggest we discard the word "natural". It has no meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say the same about miscegenation. Before it was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, marriage in some states was defined to be between members of the same race. If you're going to take that view then same sex marriage is a limitation on the right to marry based on gender and/or sexual preference.

It wasn't defined that way by those states. If you asked someone in Mississippi in 1890 what marriage was, I'm pretty sure that he or she would say something to the effect of, "the uniting of a man and a woman," without referring to race as being intrinsic to the definition. But due to that state's unfortunate views on race, which fall outside the subject of what marriage is and is not, this unification was not extended to people of different race.

Read the rest of the ruling. They really mean "our state now recognizes".

Then why doesn't the majority of the state agree with them?

The court ruled that calling it marriage only for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. California's constitution prevents using your definition of marriage.

Now you're getting into circular reasoning, which signals to me that this discussion is nearing its end. "The California Supreme Court was right in its decision about what the California constitution says, because that's what the California constitution says, as decided by the California Supreme Court," is essentially what you're telling me.

Then look again. You want to prohibit a man from marrying a man while allowing a woman to marry a man. You want to base that entirely on gender, with no other qualifying factors. That's gender discrimination.

I want to base marriage entirely on gender! As it's been based throughout history, and by the vast majority of members of just about every society on the globe!

You, on the other hand, want to take a term that has always been related to gender, and turn it into something that does not apply to gender, and whine about discrimination when people object, even while there is no tangible right that is being denied anyone.

Pretty near universal isn't universal.

It doesn't need to be. If the vast majority of people define a word as meaning one thing, and you have your own definition of it, you are not in a position to impose that definition on the majority.

There are many ways. You can measure the benefit, damage and risk, for one.

And I suggest we discard the word "natural". It has no meaning.

Like I said before, you are welcome to believe that it doesn't. I for one don't think that society can get along without universal standards of right and wrong, which can only be founded on the belief that there is an inherent plan for them in the nature of things. We can agree to disagree on that, but it really doesn't matter to this argument.

What matters is the question of whether society can invent a word whose meaning involves people of opposite gender and incorporate that word into its law without it being called 'discriminatory', even when no actual rights or privileges are being given or denied to anyone other than the use of said word.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't defined that way by those states. If you asked someone in Mississippi in 1890 what marriage was, I'm pretty sure that he or she would say something to the effect of, "the uniting of a man and a woman," without referring to race as being intrinsic to the definition. But due to that state's unfortunate views on race, which fall outside the subject of what marriage is and is not, this unification was not extended to people of different race.

It was defined that way by those states. That's what Loving v. Virginia was about.

Then why doesn't the majority of the state agree with them?

I think you're confused. That part of the ruling is talking about domestic partnership legislation in California, enacted by the legislature, elected by the people. Are you saying there's some other qualification for what a state recognizes in this case?

Now you're getting into circular reasoning, which signals to me that this discussion is nearing its end. "The California Supreme Court was right in its decision about what the California constitution says, because that's what the California constitution says, as decided by the California Supreme Court," is essentially what you're telling me.

Nope. You offered one definition of marriage that is unconstitutional in California, according to the California Supreme Court. That's perfectly linear.

I want to base marriage entirely on gender! As it's been based throughout history, and by the vast majority of members of just about every society on the globe!

I understand that you want to do that, but its discriminatory in California.

You, on the other hand, want to take a term that has always been related to gender, and turn it into something that does not apply to gender, and whine about discrimination when people object, even while there is no tangible right that is being denied anyone.

The right to marry is a "tangible" right. If you call my opposition to discrimination "whining", I'll call your opposition to my opposition "whining", too. That won't advance either of our arguments. Whiner.

It doesn't need to be. If the vast majority of people define a word as meaning one thing, and you have your own definition of it, you are not in a position to impose that definition on the majority.

I surely am if that majority definition deprives me of my civil rights. I find it contradictory that someone who believes in an absolute, universal moral code is so willing to let the majority decide what's right and what's wrong.

What matters is the question of whether society can invent a word whose meaning involves people of opposite gender and incorporate that word into its law without it being called 'discriminatory', even when no actual rights or privileges are being given or denied to anyone other than the use of said word.

Then read the ruling. The "right to marry" is a right in and of itself, not just the right to use a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was defined that way by those states. That's what Loving v. Virginia was about.

I think you're confused. That part of the ruling is talking about domestic partnership legislation in California, enacted by the legislature, elected by the people. Are you saying there's some other qualification for what a state recognizes in this case?

Nope. You offered one definition of marriage that is unconstitutional in California, according to the California Supreme Court. That's perfectly linear.

I understand that you want to do that, but its discriminatory in California.

The right to marry is a "tangible" right. If you call my opposition to discrimination "whining", I'll call your opposition to my opposition "whining", too. That won't advance either of our arguments. Whiner.

I surely am if that majority definition deprives me of my civil rights. I find it contradictory that someone who believes in an absolute, universal moral code is so willing to let the majority decide what's right and what's wrong.

Then read the ruling. The "right to marry" is a right in and of itself, not just the right to use a word.

I am going to exit this discussion because we are talking past each other. You are saying that it is a violation of civil rights that a term means a certain thing. And you are using the very decision we are arguing about as your evidence that the decision is right - classic circular logic.

Before I take off though, let me put this whole thing in persective. Imagine a society invents a word - we'll call it "zerning." When a man and a woman decide to form a legal union, it is said that they are "zerning." When once they are in that union, they are "zerned." Imagine that there are also unions between two men and two women, with all of the same privileges and rights, but society merely doesn't call those "zernings." All that's different is a word.

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure you understand what natural law is. It is a moral norm recognized innately by people as having universal claim, and being involved in the plan of nature. You are welcome to ridicule those concepts if you like, but societies that adopt the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong are generally chaotic and short-lived.

Name one...

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

You keep missing the fundamental point. As a matter of secular law... you can call unions of two people, regardless of their gender - whatever you want. As a matter of religious expression, marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, for religious institutions that want to believe that.

Again, the court did not mandate same-sex marriage. It said that couples have to be treated equally under the law. There are two ways to do that: let same-sex couples obtain civil marriage licenses or create one system of civil unions, that covers everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, marriages were performed or arranged to promote the joining of lands and or wealth, also to keep the procreation of sons and daughters going in a morally bonding way before God. Although loads of people have children out of wedlock, the whole basis for being married was to have LEGITIMATE children in the eyes of God. This is my belief also, that the only two TRUE reasons for getting married are 1: out of love between a man and a woman, to pledge yourself for better or worse before God in manogomy to that person and B: to procreate and have children to continuously populate the race and carry on your name in the eyes of God.

If you don't believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about. Marriage wasn't invented as a way to have something that gay people didn't. It was invented to make a union before God. I know I am throwing alot of God out here, but marriage is based for HIM, not so you can have cheaper healthcare, but again that is a company's way of doing business.

So, let's not call it marriage, civil union is a great term, because these couples can't copulate to procreate, so the definition of marriage falls to the wayside for gay couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to exit this discussion because we are talking past each other. You are saying that it is a violation of civil rights that a term means a certain thing. And you are using the very decision we are arguing about as your evidence that the decision is right - classic circular logic.

I'm not saying that. Read my words again. I'm saying that there is a legal right to marry, and that denying that right to same sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional in California.

Before I take off though, let me put this whole thing in persective. Imagine a society invents a word - we'll call it "zerning." When a man and a woman decide to form a legal union, it is said that they are "zerning." When once they are in that union, they are "zerned." Imagine that there are also unions between two men and two women, with all of the same privileges and rights, but society merely doesn't call those "zernings." All that's different is a word.

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

Is the word "zern" used in any of this society's laws? Are the imaginary equivalent terms for spouses used in any laws? If the laws of this society recognize zerniage in any way then yes, it is depriving same sex unions of civil rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that. Read my words again. I'm saying that there is a legal right to marry, and that denying that right to same sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional in California.

...by the very decision that I am disputing.

Is the word "zern" used in any of this society's laws? Are the imaginary equivalent terms for spouses used in any laws? If the laws of this society recognize zerniage in any way then yes, it is depriving same sex unions of civil rights.

It is mentioned in the laws, but the laws give all the same rights and privileges to unions that aren't zerniage. They just call one type of union zerniage and another type of union something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At first, marriages were performed or arranged to promote the joining of lands and or wealth, also to keep the procreation of sons and daughters going in a morally bonding way before God. Although loads of people have children out of wedlock, the whole basis for being married was to have LEGITIMATE children in the eyes of God. This is my belief also, that the only two TRUE reasons for getting married are 1: out of love between a man and a woman, to pledge yourself for better or worse before God in manogomy to that person and B: to procreate and have children to continuously populate the race and carry on your name in the eyes of God.

But you realize that other people don't share your view, right? And that you aren't allowed to impose your view on them, right?

If you don't believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about.

Woo-hoo!

So, let's not call it marriage, civil union is a great term, because these couples can't copulate to procreate, so the definition of marriage falls to the wayside for gay couples.

There's clearly more to marriage than appeasing god(s) or procreating. Are you saying that once people get married they can only boink for babies? And that God doesn't want gay people to get married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one...

Weimar society in Germany.

You keep missing the fundamental point. As a matter of secular law... you can call unions of two people, regardless of their gender - whatever you want. As a matter of religious expression, marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, for religious institutions that want to believe that.

Again, the court did not mandate same-sex marriage. It said that couples have to be treated equally under the law. There are two ways to do that: let same-sex couples obtain civil marriage licenses or create one system of civil unions, that covers everyone.

I am not missing the point. Religion has its way of defining marriage, and secular law has its way. When something is defined a certain way by law, in a democratic society, it is done by the majority.

The couples were treated equally under law before. One kind of couple was called a "marriage" and the other was called a "civil union," but they were treated equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...by the very decision that I am disputing.

But you haven't disputed the ruling. You've said the ruling redefines marriage (which it doesn't), but you haven't explained why denying the right to marry to same sex couples should be constitutional.

It is mentioned in the laws, but the laws give all the same rights and privileges to unions that aren't zerniage. They just call one type of union zerniage and another type of union something else.

If it has been established that there is a "right to zern", then yes, calling it something else denies that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you realize that other people don't share your view, right? And that you aren't allowed to impose your view on them, right?

Woo-hoo!

There's clearly more to marriage than appeasing god(s) or procreating. Are you saying that once people get married they can only boink for babies? And that God doesn't want gay people to get married?

I realize that my point of view is not of a more vocal point of view these days. Although, I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it is the most popular view of marriage in an anonymous poll. I could give two squirts though about whether two gay folks want to tie the knot, more power to them. I don't judge 'em, I just live life around them.

However,I was simply stating WHY marriage was invented, perhaps I should have said that as the world has changed so has alot of people's tolerances. I am simply stating what marriage was intended for when it first began. Do I think it should change to fit the needs of the certain peoples, because they feel like they are the "have nots" ? Depends on WHAT your belief system is.

As far as "boinkin for babies". It is ok to boink for recreation as well as procreation, but if you get a bun in the oven, they won't be a bastard bun.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you haven't disputed the ruling.

I disputed it in my first post, with quotes from the ruling.

You've said the ruling redefines marriage (which it doesn't), but you haven't explained why denying the right to marry to same sex couples should be constitutional.

If it has been established that there is a "right to zern", then yes, calling it something else denies that right.

Sure there is a right to zern, as long as you are doing what zerning is - namely, a union between a man and a woman. Demanding that something that isn't zerning be called zerning because there is a "right to zern" is silly. It would be like someone who didn't have any children demand they be called a parent, because of some "right to parenting."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weimar society in Germany.

I am not missing the point. Religion has its way of defining marriage, and secular law has its way. When something is defined a certain way by law, in a democratic society, it is done by the majority.

The couples were treated equally under law before. One kind of couple was called a "marriage" and the other was called a "civil union," but they were treated equally.

Given the choice between Weimar Germany... and the government that ultimately crushed it, Hitler and the Third Reich, I would much rather live under the rule of the former. In many ways, I've seen troubling parallels, in this country over the past many years, in terms of an extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens. Similar, but not quite to the extent, that citizens of Germany from about 1920 to 1933 saw their democracy destroyed by the Nazis in 1933. Good example.

Your line of logic, of separate but equal, dates back to 1896 and was finally overturned in 1954. Separate is never equal, no matter how hard you try to make them the same. And if it weren't for the action of the Supreme Court, in 1954, but rather by vote of the majority of that era, as you suggest, we'd still be living under that unjust doctrine, going on over 100 years by now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the choice between Weimar Germany... and the government that ultimately crushed it, Hitler and the Third Reich, I would much rather live under the rule of the former. In many ways, I've seen troubling parallels, in this country over the past many years, in terms of an extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens. Similar, but not quite to the extent, that citizens of Germany from about 1920 to 1933 saw their democracy destroyed by the Nazis in 1933. Good example.

Your line of logic, of separate but equal, dates back to 1896 and was finally overturned in 1954. Separate is never equal, no matter how hard you try to make them the same. And if it weren't for the action of the Supreme Court, in 1954, but rather by vote of the majority of that era, as you suggest, we'd still be living under that unjust doctrine, going on over 100 years by now...

My only point concerning Weimar was to use it as an example that societies of moral license are inherently unstable. The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point. A long line of political thinkers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Tocqueville, has pointed out that a society of moral anarchy can only lead to tyranny.

If you think American society today has strong parallels to Nazi Germany in terms of an "extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens," you should probably leave the country quickly, or at least refrain from expressing those views in a place where our oppressive government could see them and nab you for saying them. Hurry BryanS! That evil Bush gestapo is probably already on its way!!

That's a pretty absurd leap, to conflate what I am saying about the definition of marriage with the "separate but equal" opinion on segregation. I am proposing that only through majority decision should we extend the meaning of a term that has up until now meant opposite sex unions to also include single sex unions. How is that like segregation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty absurd leap, to conflate what I am saying about the definition of marriage with the "separate but equal" opinion on segregation. I am proposing that only through majority decision should we extend the meaning of a term that has up until now meant opposite sex unions to also include single sex unions. How is that like segregation?

It's like segregation because what you propose is a separate but equal marriage for gay people. You want to give them equal status but keep them separate. See? That's the argument for segregation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only point concerning Weimar was to use it as an example that societies of moral license are inherently unstable. The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point. A long line of political thinkers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Tocqueville, has pointed out that a society of moral anarchy can only lead to tyranny.

You're absolutely right. Gay and lesbian people should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride on the back of the bus. Because if they don't, then the wrath of an authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government awaits them. If we all lived under the fear of not challenging the status quo, this country would be no where near what it is today, in terms of civil rights. That is, we

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like segregation because what you propose is a separate but equal marriage for gay people. You want to give them equal status but keep them separate. See? That's the argument for segregation.

It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation? What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law? This is absurd.

You're absolutely right. Gay and lesbian people should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride on the back of the bus. Because if they don't, then the wrath of an authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government awaits them. If we all lived under the fear of not challenging the status quo, this country would be no where near what it is today, in terms of civil rights. That is, we
Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

Agreed.

How is that like segregation?

We just went over that. It's an attempt to create a separate but equal marriage.

What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law?

The right to marry. We went over that, too.

This is absurd.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point. At least Ms. Parks was allowed to get on the bus.

Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

We just went over that. It's an attempt to create a separate but equal marriage.

If having two different names for two different things that are treated equally under law is segregation, then I guess it is segregation that we call some people "males" and others "females." I guess it is segregation that we call some people "black" and others "white," even if blacks and whites are given equal rights and privileges.

You still have not addressed the silliness of saying that it is "segregation" to give two different names to two different types of union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

In your world, perhaps not. In many others, most definitely. It is not uncommon for those receiving the full benefit to wonder why the ones receiving only the partial benefit cannot be content with that partial benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your world, perhaps not. In many others, most definitely. It is not uncommon for those receiving the full benefit to wonder why the ones receiving only the partial benefit cannot be content with that partial benefit.

You clearly have not read any of my posts, because I have said all along that same-sex unions should have all the same benefits as opposite-sex unions, and the same status under law.

I think that in your mind you are simply lumping me together with everyone with whom you have ever argued on this issue - the sign of an emotional arguer.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You clearly have not read any of my posts, because I have said all along that same-sex unions should have all the same benefits as opposite-sex unions, and the same status under law.

I think that in your mind you are simply lumping me together with everyone with whom you have ever argued on this issue - the sign of an emotional arguer.

I have read your posts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck.

And, I have never argued this point before, as none of my friends oppose gay marriage. Not sure what an emotional arguer is, but it sounds bad. If I have it, I sure hope it doesn't affect my 21 year career as a trial attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read your posts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck.

Yep, anyone who disagrees with this court decision must just be someone who hates gays. Don't bother trying to understand what he says, let's just put words in his mouth.

Sorry Red, I expected better of you.

And, I have never argued this point before, as none of my friends oppose gay marriage. Not sure what an emotional arguer is, but it sounds bad. If I have it, I sure hope it doesn't affect my 21 year career as a trial attorney.

Has anyone kept track of how many separate times RedScare has let us know that he is an attorney on this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, anyone who disagrees with this court decision must just be someone who hates gays. Don't bother trying to understand what he says, let's just put words in his mouth.

Not to mention it was a 4-3 "majority" decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

If having two different names for two different things that are treated equally under law is segregation, then I guess it is segregation that we call some people "males" and others "females." I guess it is segregation that we call some people "black" and others "white," even if blacks and whites are given equal rights and privileges.

You still have not addressed the silliness of saying that it is "segregation" to give two different names to two different types of union.

Using your logic, it's OK to refer to white males as men, and black males as boys.

Try it sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation? What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law? This is absurd.

When did I say that an "authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government" awaits gay people? What does "status quo" have to do with having two different names for two separate things? How would anything I have said imply that gay and lesbian people are at the back of the bus, especially when I said that their civil union should have all the rights and privileges of opposite sex unions?

You're not Rosa Parks, or Anne Frank. You're not living under a Nazi regime. I have not said anything that could reasonably be construed as oppression. You are importing your emotions from other arguments on this matter with people who probably took a much different stance than mine.

"

," either... Thank you, for stating the obvious.

Please explain this statement: "The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point." What exactly do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention it was a 4-3 "majority" decision.

4/7 = 57%. Pretty solid majority. Quite a few elected officials would love to win by that kind of margin. So I guess when the people of CA amend their constitution this Nov by 51% - that shouldn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone kept track of how many separate times RedScare has let us know that he is an attorney on this forum?

Yeah, 237.5 times. The half came when somebody called him a "Shister", and he just said "Thanks."

Look H-town, Red doesn't bother you in the morning when you are picking up those trashcans and throwin'em in the back of that big truck, so why do you want to bother him about his job ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation?

Let me see if I understand at least one of your assertions correctly.

"Civil Unions" and a "Marriage" are both basically the same, so why can't the Gay & Lesbian community be satisfied with the Civil Union concept since they are both basically "equal." It is just a separate name, so what's the big deal?

That leaves a question for me.

If the Gay and Lesbian community shouldn't be concerned over the simple wording or whatever, so long as benefits are the same, then why do you get to be concerned over it? If it is all the same, and not another of example of how "separate but equal" never is, then why is it necessary to create a different definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me see if I understand at least one of your assertions correctly.

"Civil Unions" and a "Marriage" are both basically the same, so why can't the Gay & Lesbian community be satisfied with the Civil Union concept since they are both basically "equal." It is just a separate name, so what's the big deal?

That leaves a question for me.

If the Gay and Lesbian community shouldn't be concerned over the simple wording or whatever, so long as benefits are the same, then why do you get to be concerned over it? If it is all the same, and not another of example of how "separate but equal" never is, then why is it necessary to create a different definition?

I didn't create a different definition. This is the definition that has existed since our laws were created. All I am saying... and please read this carefully... all I am saying is that if the definition is going to be changed, it should be done by majority vote - not by a court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't create a different definition. This is the definition that has existed since our laws were created. All I am saying... and please read this carefully... all I am saying is that if the definition is going to be changed, it should be done by majority vote - not by a court.

Why should this be decided by a vote while other civil rights issues weren't? Is it because it's about gay people or because it's about marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...