|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Quoted from World AP-Canada:
Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage
By COLIN McCLELLAND, Associated Press Writer
TORONTO - The Canadian prime minister said he will file a bill to permit same-sex marriages, a change that would make Canada only the third country where such homosexual couples can legally wed.
The bill will be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court for review, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Tuesday. Chretien's Liberal Party has a majority in the legislature, though the issue has caused division in the party.
Currently, only Belgium and The Netherlands recognize same-sex marriages.
Recent court rulings have declared Canada's definition of marriage as unconstitutional because it specified it as the union of a man and a woman.
An Ontario appeals court last week declared the wording invalid, changing it to a union between two people.
Dozens of homosexual couples have obtained marriage licenses since the court ruling, with at least one wedding taking place.
"There is an evolution of society," Chretien said in making the announcement after a Cabinet meeting. He said the law would allow religions the right to decide what marriages should be sanctified.
An Anglican diocese in Vancouver has approved a blessing for same-sex unions, which it says is separate from marriage. The blessing ceremony, performed once so far, caused a split in the diocese with some churches dissociating themselves.
Opinion polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favor legalizing same-sex marriages. After the Ontario appeals court ruling and similar previous ones by courts in British Columbia and Quebec, the government was under pressure to change the law or file appeals that would have left the issue unsettled.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Tuesday it was time for change.
"We have decided not to appeal those rulings ... and proceeded with draft legislation that will be ready shortly ," he said. The new law would redefine marriage as called for by the courts while protecting religious freedoms, according to Cauchon.
"We're talking about essential freedoms here," he said.
Svend Robinson, a Parliament member for the leftist New Democratic Party who has pushed for same-sex marriages in Canada, praised Chretien's government for showing leadership. He rejected opposition by conservative political groups, who argue that changing the definition of marriage uproots a fundamental tenet of Canadian society.
In the United States, homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage.
"Americans now have the chance to see a society can treat gay people with respect," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry organization promoting homosexual marriage. "Families are helped, and no one is hurt."
'Bout time, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
what is the legal reasoning why gay people can not be married in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
what is the legal reasoning why gay people can not be married in the US?
I'm not sure there are any valid legal reasons......they should allow same-sex marriage here too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
It isn't so much the legal reasoning as it is the law. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is.
The real question (and maybe that is what Rob meant) is what is the rationale for enacting a law?
I don't know. For some reason, owing NOTHING to my religious upbringing, I am in favor of the defense of marriage act.
I am not at peace with my position on this though. For every reason I offer for support of it, I can easily refute myself.
I am not really down on homosexuality. I wish the GOP (to which I belong) would not focus on the gay issue so much. Sodomy laws are not a really critical issue and I wish the 'Pubs wouldn't expend political capital to hound the gays.
But in the end (no pun intended...ok maybe a little), the only real reason I can use to justify the DOMA here in the US is that "that's the way it has always been." I just don't know if that is good enough.
But as far as legal reasoning, I don't read anything in the Const. that prevents Congress from enacting legislation preventing same sex marriage.
If you look past his ridiculous comments, this is what Santorum was talking about. Unfortunately, a valid point soon gave way to talks on beastiality.
Nothing clouds an issue more than talk of a man lovin' a pig.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
8 Reasons used in court and legislative bodies to justify the ban on same-sex marriages: Procreation argument: The purpose of marriage is to procreate; making babies requires a heterosexual couple. However, nobody appears to take this argument to its logical conclusion and terminate or ban all marriages where one partner is impotent, infertile, elderly, or has decided to not have children. In addition, lesbian couples can and do have children; all they need is artificial insemination, just like many heterosexual couples in which the husband is infertile. Determining who is the legal parent: Lord Mansfield's rule presumes that children born to a married woman are a product of the husband and the wife. Some have expressed concern over how to establish the parenthood within a homosexual marriage. This is does not seem to be a problem: the spouse bringing children into the marriage would be the parent; the other spouse could try to adopt if they wished - both lesbian spouses could be considered parents of any child born into their marriage.
- both gay spouses could adopt any children brought into their family
Argument from historical tradition:
We have not allowed homosexuals in the past to marry. That is true, but until a few decades ago, we did not allow people of different races to marry. Before that, in some states, we did not allow Afro-American slaves to marry. The institution of marriage has been in a continual state of flux for centuries.
The Defense of Marriage Act:
Many states have passed DOMA laws which they believe will excuse them from recognizing gay or lesbian marriages performed in other states. But some constitutional experts feel that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution makes such laws unconstitutional. Also, if same-sex couples cannot have the same rights in one state as they do in another, then their ability to travel within the U.S. would be restricted. And the right to travel has been well established by the courts. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a recent Colorado voter initiative case that a law which is designed to reduce the civil and human rights of a specific minority is unconstitutional. What is a more fundamental human right than the right to marry?
No compelling state interest:
Legislation must fulfill a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional. Some feel that there is no need to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians. But public opinion polls consistently indicate that the vast majority of homosexuals feel that the right to marry is very important - to them. Also, married people tend to be more monogamous than singles; monogamy lessens the frequency of transmission of AIDS and other STDs.
It would cost too much:
This is a valid point. Giving gays and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual couples would indeed increase the tax burden. Married couples pick up over 1,000 responsibilities, benefits and rights from the federal government and hundreds from their state government. So, it is cheaper for governments to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Companies would have to extend dental, medical and other employee benefits to homosexual spouses. But think of how much more money could be saved if the government cut off all benefits for red-heads, or Afro-Americans, or people over 6' tall...or from any other minority. Fairness requires that people be treated equally.
Gay marriages threatens the institution of marriage:
This is presented as a self-evident fact by man theologians, legislators, judges, etc. But we have not been able to find out why they feel that way. The author personally would not feel that his (heterosexual) marriage was threatened if a gay or lesbian couple down the street suddenly was given a marriage license to put on their wall, dental and medical benefits, survivor pension benefits, etc.
Most people are against gay marriages: This is also true. Males and older people in particular oppose same-sex marriages. But then, most people in racially segregated areas were opposed to integration during the 1960's. Most people in those states which prohibited mixed race marriages were opposed to the legalization of those marriages when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the state laws to be unconstitutional. Making some people feel more relaxed is not a sufficient reason to deny others equal rights under law.
-------
I trust the stuff above is what you wanted to know, Rob. There's a very long history behind legislation and the prohibition of same-sex marriages within the U.S., but that would be a whole other post in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
great answer, wednesday. most of it makes "sense" (if y'know what i mean).
i guess i just dont get it.
the procreation concept would null and void tom cruise and nicole kidman's marriage. silly.
the parental argument, i guess, has some merit. but, my girlfriend's father is an ass and hasn't been involved with her family in some 15 years. her and her sister were raised by their mom and their grandparents. many kids have two adopted (hetero) parents. many live with just an aunt and uncle. and dont all permission slips need to be signed by a "parent or legal guardian"? seems to me if a grammar school field trip could handle this problem, the gubment could, too.
the historical idea, as you pointed out, is equally silly.
state interest... hmm... i guess this is a tricky point. i guess it requires a broader definition of the term "compelling." is that 100 people? 1,000,000 people?
i never thought of the cost factor, or tax / insurance coverage factor. an interesting argument. but, i think a similar counter point as the parental argument could be made for most topics in this one.
the "institution of marriage" is something based completely upon the two being wed. if you want that to be sacred, go for it. if not, thats yer call. there are swingers all over the place. how many rock stars or rappers are married for 2 or 3 days? i can "understand" why a certain religion might want to exclude the concept of a homosexual marriage, but i guess thats ok because they're private entities. they're allowed such luxuries. they're also "in control" of how the concept of marriage is perceived. but the government? no way. vegas chapels abound.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
As an uncomfortable supporter of DOMA, I will comment on each of these points. Procreation argument: ... The response to this is perfectly valid. Procreation is not an issue. Determining who is the legal parent: I think that if they are married, Lord Mannie's rule should apply just the same. Any child born into a marriage is presumed to be the child of the person conceiving and the spouse. The only complication is, what are the rights of the father? I guess if the lesbian couple aren't careful enough to execute a termination of parental rights along with the conception, then it would be more difficult. I guess then, the biological father, if so inclined, could overcome the presumption and establish paternity. With adoption, there is NO confusion as the adoption of a person automatically terminates the parental rights of the replaced parent. Argument from historical tradition: See, this was my qualification. I agree with all of your points and analogies, but something about it sticks in my crawl. The Defense of Marriage Act: quote:
Many states have passed DOMA laws which they believe will excuse them from recognizing gay or lesbian marriages performed in other states. But some constitutional experts feel that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution makes such laws unconstitutional. Also, if same-sex couples cannot have the same rights in one state as they do in another, then their ability to travel within the U.S. would be restricted. And the right to travel has been well established by the courts. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a recent Colorado voter initiative case that a law which is designed to reduce the civil and human rights of a specific minority is unconstitutional. What is a more fundamental human right than the right to marry?
Fundamental human rights and fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL rights are two seperate issues. Plus, much of this passage is made moot by the passage of the FEDERAL DOMA which prohibits states from allowing gay marriage. Also, do you have a cite on that SCOTUS case from Colorado?
No compelling state interest:
quote:
Legislation must fulfill a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional. Some feel that there is no need to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians. But public opinion polls consistently indicate that the vast majority of homosexuals feel that the right to marry is very important - to them. Also, married people tend to be more monogamous than singles; monogamy lessens the frequency of transmission of AIDS and other STDs.
This information is innacurate. Only if the right is deemed to be a fundamental right, does it receive the strict scrutiny (compelling or overriding govt. interest) review. Same sex marriage has never been granted such status. In fact, a case, not dealing with same sex marriage of course, has ruled that there is no basic right to lead a certain lifestyle (Kelley v. Johnson, 425 US 238 (1976). Not exactly on point, but I promise you it would be cited by the side who opposed same sex.
Thus, until gay marriage is afforded such status, it falls into the rational basis standard. This means that if there is any rational reason why the govt. passed such a law, then is upheld.
The ones you cite could be used as rational basis for such a law (as well as the bold heading that follows).
Now, the gay community could (and probably HAS) try to say that though it is not a fundamental right, they are a suspect class. This requires that they are historically discriminated against but also that the characteristic that makes them suspect be also immutable (meaning incapable of change). I don't need to tell you where THAT factor leads this debate....
It would cost too much:
This ISN'T a good point. If the people should be afforded such rights, they should be given them regardless of cost. Cost should not be an issue if such rights are in fact owed. The question to me is whether such rights are owed. I also don't think the comparison to racial equality is such a given in many people's minds. Is this wrong? I don't know.
Gay marriages threatens the institution of marriage:
I think this is very similar to historical tradition and wouldn't count it as a seperate reason.
This is really a tough issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Also, do you have a cite on that SCOTUS case from Colorado?
Sorry, it took me so long. I didn't see the question until I reread your post...
Romer vs. Evans
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
On another point you made, the question of whether or not homosexuals are a suspect class WAS brought up during Romer. Since the Court held that Amendment 2 did not survive rational basis review, however, the decision was made that there was no reason for the Court to address the question at that time.
On a side note: in the 1990 case, High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (I'm not making that up) the district court held that “gay people are, in fact, a "quasi-suspect class’ entitled to heightened scrutiny.” The Ninth Circuit Court reversed, though.
A tough issue, but a very interesting one once you get your feet dirty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
blasted high tech gays!
always attacking with their quasi-future gay beams!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Thank You for making me aware of that case. I had heard of the Colorado Case, but never really looked into it. The Amendment in question: "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self executing." Truly sickening. PROHIBITING people from passing laws to help gays. Too far. The case is interesting. It was written by my favorite Justice, Anthony Kennedy. A compassionate conservative indeed. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) I don't have time to read the case, but I am looking at the Key Notes on Westlaw, and even in that case, they only required a rational basis (not the compelling interest standard) test. The thing about that case was that the facts of the case were SO tilted against what the govt. was trying to do, further analysis was not required. I get the impression that was a famous S.Ct sidestep. COWARDS! In that case, there was an Amendment to the Colorado Const. that "prohibits all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect homosexual persons from discrimination." But the case DID note that the "14th Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws must coexist with practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another with resulting disadvatage to various groups or persons." "Equal Protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities" and "central to both the idea of rule of law and the the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistence." Also, "A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense." But the most stark distinction between this case and a potential case involving same sex marriages is that "a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." So this case really provides firepower for both sides. It suggests that the EP doesn't allow every group to say that THEY are being violated just because a law applies directly to them and if you want to target a specific class, you better have a stronger reason than you just want to discriminate. The really interesting development in this field will be when the court rules on Lawrence v. Texas. Expect that case to cite this one heavily. The ruling in that case will be VERY important to developments in gay rights. However that case goes, so goes the gay rights movement. But, if O'Connor is replaced by a right ideologue, then the issue makes Kennedy a swing voter once again. This opinion shows he will defend gay rights, but also suggests they may not worthy of strict scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
A few posts came in as I was writing my longwinded post.
Quasi suspect is an interesting one.
Honestly, gay should be a legitimate suspect class as modern science has indicated that it is indeed immutable.
High Tech Gays. Snicker.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
My momma used to warn me that them gay rays will getcha from behind if ya ain't careful ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif) . Anywho, I wonder if this whole Canada thing will start a mass exodus across the border when it passes. Hundreds of pink buses (with fashionably decorated interiors, of course) headin' North, aye?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I think they must have invented the revolutionary "gaydar" we hear so much about! ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
would a canadian married gay couple be recognized in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I'd think not. DOMA says the US shall not recognize same sex marriages.
Equally, there is federal legislation that prevents recognition of bigomy.
[chauvenistic]
So when a Saudi prince comes to America with all of his wives, only ONE can ride his ass during the trip.
[/chauvenistic]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif) That's a one-way tunnel, man!!! I could have been more offensive but that would have meant a longer post. ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif) I don't hate anyone. I don't hate homosexuals. But I don't approve of their actions. And my conscience would not permit me not to oppose laws sanctioning such actions. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
'Bout time, IMHO.
I think you summed it up for me. Some story about them busting a gay couple in Texas (where technically they can be charged with a crime). Can't remember the link though. Not my choice of lifestyle, but its two conscenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I don't hate anyone. I don't hate homosexuals.
But I don't approve of their actions.
And my conscience would not permit me not to oppose laws sanctioning such actions.
But that's just me.
I don't approve of people voting for Democrats, but I don't think it should be illegal.
I don't understand why you would care if they do it to the point you would want a law disallowing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
'Bout time, IMHO.
I think you summed it up for me. Some story about them busting a gay couple in Texas (where technically they can be charged with a crime). Can't remember the link though. Not my choice of lifestyle, but its two conscenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
It is the case we were talking about that has been argued before the court but not decided, Lawrence v. Texas.
Now, while I believe it should NOT be prohibited, I also DON'T feel it is a Constitutionally protected right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Now, while I believe it should NOT be prohibited, I also DON'T feel it is a Constitutionally protected right.
It should be.
The Constitution is based on the idea that all men are created equal. IMHO, that precludes the selective bestowment of rights without reason. Since there is no sound reason to withhold the right to same-sex marriages, the right should protected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
It should be.
I imagine that is why you vote the way you do and I vote the way I do!
quote:
The Constitution is based on the idea that all men are created equal. IMHO, that precludes the selective bestowment of rights without reason. Since there is no sound reason to withhold the right to same-sex marriages, the right should protected.
Soundness is a VERY subjective beast. While I agree with you on the facts, I disagree with your legal analysis.
I view the Const. fundamentally protecting rights as enumerated. Congress also has the power to enact laws for the general welfare of the nation. As long as these laws do not directly contradict something EXPRESSLY in the constitution, I believe they should be allowed to stand.
I don't believe in implied fundamental rights. I don't believe in penumbras.
The only extensions I believe in are the ones that, without which, the right itself would have no value (surprisingly, I am a conservative who believes in the exclusionary rule).
But again, that is because I am a conservative.
I see no fundamental right to marry in the Constitution. I believe Congress should allow it from a legal standpoint. But I do not believe it is appropriate for the courts to demand it.
It just doesn't say it in the constitution from my reading.
Now, I will say I see possible grounds on the 14th Amendment EP right for Lawrence to go against the state (We'll ignore for a second that it was written expressly for black americans).
Loosely enforcing the 14th really does create a slippery slope where anyone can do anything they want. (enter Santorum's rant)
In all of this, I thought of an observation I made a few weeks back.
Wed., as an intelligent student of the law, if you will be my "guinea pig", I'd like to conduct an experiment in political/legal reasoning.
Please give me your thoughts on what rights the 2nd Amendment provides.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Correction: it is not true to say I disagree with your "legal analysis", more your legal ideology.
According to your legal ideology, you analysis is accurate.
A small distinction, but an important one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
In order to keep this thread on topic, I'll post my remarks on the Second Amendment here. I figure I might as well post my thoughts where they will fit best.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I must say...This is a very fascinating thread. You guys are a lot more open minded than I'd previously given you credit for.
But in all honesty, I think the whole gay marriage thing is such an overzealous waste of public attention. I'm a card carryinng friend of Dorothy, but I really don't get exited by our impending 'equal rights' here in Canada. I don't see it as being a workable situation in today's society. As enlightened as we've become in modern society, I would still not want to have my 'marriage' be immediate information in assorted situations (a job application being the first example that springs to mind). There is still more than enough ignorance going around (ex: Captain Sammich here) to make a marriage an unnecessary burden. It's sad but true.
I know that as much as I love my boyfriend (of 3 1/2 years), I have no intention of making him my husband. This isn't a statment of shame, as I'd never think of hiding denying my homosexuality...But at the same time, it's not the first thing that anyone I've just encountered needs to know about me.
I think the subject should be reveiwed again in the future...But right now, society just isn't ready to handle this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
I think the subject should be reveiwed again in the future...But right now, society just isn't ready to handle this.
Society wasn't ready for the Civil Rights Movement either. Sometimes you've got to push an issue. And sometimes, you have to strap a high-octane rocket on its back, point her in the right direction, light her up, and hope for a low crash ratio.
Don't know what happened to Rob's board (or maybe it was just me), but I lost a huge post on the Second Amendment a few minutes ago ![[sad]](images/icons/frown.gif) . Still, we seem to be operating at full capacity, so I'll give it a second, abbreviated try:
My thoughts on the Second Amendment (truncated for your pleasure):
I personally believe, as most gun-controlists do, that the Second Amendment was written solely for the intent of maintaining and armed militia for the purpose of state defense. I would also add that I see no personal right given, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.
To my knowledge, U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. I agree wholeheartedly.
On a side-note, American society has changed to the point that it is too dangerous for this right to continue as originally written. I do believe, however, in very stringent gun-control. A quote by Cesare Beccaria is responsible for my current view on gun control.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for
an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Interesting. Here's my theory (and don't take this as a trap or an attack. I appreciate the discussion and respect your positions):
People who are willing to ignore the intent of the 14th Amendment to favor their cause (regardless of the drafter's intent to use at as a vehicle to protect blacks as they moved from slavery), are apt to hone in on what they believe the framer's intent to be when applying the second amendment. In other words, broad on what they want, narrow on what they don't.
But so you see I am not left bashing, my theory also applies to the right. Many people seem to be textualists when holding a right ideology until it comes time to review the 14th Amendment or the 1st Amendment. It says expressly, you have the right to free speech. Simply looking at the text, obscenity would be protected, yes?
Do we all do this? Do we all put on different judicial theories hats to meet our underlying beliefs?
Are we truly legally disciplined or in the end are we all just "end result" interpreters?
I worry at times that I am guilty of this.
(For the record, I disagree with your position on the 2nd Amendment, but that wasn't the point of my experiment. Nor, was the purpose to "trip you up" or insult you in any way. I hope you take in the nature it was intended: intellectual curiosity).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Totally understandable and no offense taken.
And I agree that we're all "end-result" interpreters. In this respect, the Constitution is no different than the Bible. A set of prescribed laws we all view in ways to fit our own personal beliefs.
That's why I do my best to avoid saying that any law (biblical or otherwise) means this or that, without first being clear that my words are based on my beliefs.
For the record, I think the Constitutional laws are purposely vague. The Constitution was made to bend (slightly, mind you) and grow with the times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
There is still more than enough ignorance going around (ex: Captain Sammich here) to make a marriage an unnecessary burden. It's sad but true.
Yeah, that's cute. I'm ignorant for not approving of stuff you do. Not agreeing with you doesn't automatically make me wrong. Don't interpret my lack of approval for a lifestyle as a lack of respect for an individual - I don't throw stones or thump Bibles at people for doing something I don't see as right. However, it seems that you are unwilling to extend a similar courtesy to me, finding me 'ignorant' and unworthy of your respect simply because I stated my personal beliefs - without even stating an intention to interfere with yours!
Observe that I am not launching ad hominem attacks against you or others with similar beliefs, yet you find it necessary to berate me (probably without reading anything else I've said) for simply holding a different opinion. Either you're trying to start something so you can duck behind the almighty shield of political correctness and throw your dogmatic pebbles with impunity, or you simply misinterpreted my statement and/or my intentions.
I am willing to conclude that you misinterpreted me, rather than start a pointless argument that will accomplish absolutely nothing toward an understanding of this issue. Whether you are going to address my statements directly or make offhand references to them, I would appreciate a less judgmental tone from you, regardless of how vindicated it may make you feel. I am attempting to observe common rules of etiquette here, although I may sometimes make humorous statements that may be interpreted otherwise. Similar etiquette would greatly aid the presentation of your argument. It would also prevent things from becoming rather unpleasant for all parties concerned.
I'll let that remark of yours slide for now. Future character attacks and undeserved rudeness, however, will not help your cause very much. I've got a good deal more tolerance for differing viewpoints than for mindless backlashing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
But I don't approve of their actions.
And my conscience would not permit me not to oppose laws sanctioning such actions.
But that's just me.
I think you've misunderstood your own statement on this one Capt. What you are saying is you are willing to prevent a homosexual couple from enjoying the same rights, freedoms, and resposibilities of a heterosexual couple. That you would deny them their right to the pursuit of happiness, in a basically private area of their lives that wouldn't interfere with your rights. Imagine if people were wanting to ban hetero marriage. How would you react to that?
It appears that you are indeed willing, or trying, to interfere with others personal belifs.
I most emphatically do not, however, think you are ignorant. The overall content of your posts belie that notion.
I'm not a big fan of marriage in any instance. I think it's just a vestige of our past that serves no real purpose in the modern world. But, if two strights can matrry, I see no reason two gays or lesbians can't.
Don't know if it matters, but if it does, I myself am straight, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
Excuse all the typos, I'm TWI (typeing while intoxicated - I am a Scotsman afterall).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
I am a Scotsman afterall
In that case, we forgive you .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
It requires a rethink of marriage in general to say that homosexual and heterosexual couples should have the same marital rights and responsibilities. The practices of marriage as they are commonly understood in Western society today stem largely from Judeo-Christian practices based upon Judeo-Christian scriptures - which do not condone homosexuality. All I'm saying is that you can't extend the concept of marriage as we know it now to fit something contrary to the precepts upon which that concept is built and by which it has been defined for most of our society's history. You can't change such an entrenched aspect of society without having to re-write many other precepts as well - after which you're not left with much to go on anyway. If you're that intent on making homosexual and heterosexual couples equal, you may as well throw out the marriage idea entirely. At least that's my perspective.
To me, the idea of legitimizing homosexual marriages may not directly interfere with my personal life, but the impact I feel it would have on society would ultimately affect everyone. That may not be terribly politically correct or tolerant of me, but I'm sure there are more horrible things I could be guilty of. Nothing personal, really. Like I said, I don't hate anybody. I'm just not willing to condone through silence any actions I don't approve of.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I commend you for voicing your opinion despite the fact that it was an un-PC one. However, quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
...based upon Judeo-Christian scriptures - which do not condone homosexuality...
is a whole other can of worms. First, the issue of Church and state comes into play. Can state or federal law be based on the scriptures of any religion? That's a huge question.
Also, the idea that true Judeo-Christian scriptures disapproves of homosexuality can be challenged, believe me. If you'd care to cite your sources, I'd love to play devil's advocate (get it?).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
Cap't, you seem to be confusing religious ceremony and the civil contract that the state grants. The religious ceremony has no standing in American law, the civil contract is all that counts. And I really don't see what political correctnes has to do with it. It's simply a matter of two human beings who are in love and desire some kind of societal acknowledgement of their bond. We recognise plenty of marriages that aren't based on J-C tradition. The Asian-based religions and Native Americans, would be a couple examples. What if two atheists want to get married?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
what is the legal reasoning why gay people can not be married in the US?
Marriage is something that is in the Bible, beginning with Genesis. It is the union of one man and one woman, in a ceremony before God.
If you allow gay marriage, then you pervert the meaning of Judao-Christian teachings, which are, if you believe (and I do), "God-breathed" scripture, inspired by God Himself.
Gays do NOT have the right to change/pervert the meaning of marriage. They can live together. They can have some secular recognition of health and life insurance benefits. (Although with the extremely high incidence of AIDS/HIV among gay men, I sure wouldn't be eager to offer health or death benefits, if I was an insurance company). The problem is, if Gay Marriage is recognized in courts, it is forced on the mainstream of American culture, including the majority of America which, when polled, calls itself Christian.
Gays have no right to change the meaning of marriage for the rest of society.
Marriage is a Judao-Christian practice. And homosexuality sure as hell isn't a Judao-Christian practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Dave the Wonder Boy was a little less subtle than I would have been, but a lot of people agree with that perspective. Call it whatever you want, but it's well within their constitutional rights, and a lot less incendiary than many perspectives I've heard on either side. Wingnut, I am impressed by your depth of thought on this matter. I am puzzled, however, as to the importance of the 'social acknowledgement' you mentioned when so many homosexuals keep insisting that they don't care what society thinks of them. Exactly what would a homosexual couple want others to acknowledge publicly in a union of theirs? That it's no different from a heterosexual marriage? Good luck convincing anyone with functional eyesight of that. Why would someone be interested in the legal contract of marriage if they're not concerned with its cultural or religious significance? Maybe they're after domestic-joint-income tax breaks? Maybe they want to be able to adopt children (now there's a topic we could spend a while on ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif) )? Maybe they just want to dilute another aspect of tradition and rub it in Righty's face? Or do they need it to ease their consciences? I honestly don't know. But maybe people should stop to think about just what they hope to gain from something so controversial before going to the mat and raising an uproar. It might make it easier for them to make their case, and it might dispel others' suppositions that they're just looking for a fight. Because honestly, the whole homosexual marriage issue doesn't strike a lot of people as much more than another front to wage war against the more conservative and traditional elements of society. And if that's true, gay-rights activists might discover that they're merely being used as pawns in the endless conservative-versus-liberal, Republican-versus-Democrat tug-of-war over the votes of people they'll probably forget within weeks of elections anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
First, the issue of Church and state comes into play. Can state or federal law be based on the scriptures of any religion? That's a huge question.
Also, the idea that true Judeo-Christian scriptures disapproves of homosexuality can be challenged, believe me. If you'd care to cite your sources, I'd love to play devil's advocate (get it?).
Separation of church and state and the stance of Judeo-Christian scriptures on homosexuality are topics that would require (and probably already have) their own threads. I'm not interested in debating the legitimacy of homosexuality in this particular discussion - a debate on that wouldn't change anyone's mind anyway. I'm more concerned with the supposition that the most fundamental definition of marriage should be summarily dismissed, thus building up to a comprehensive rethink of the underpinnings of our society.
This issue may seem small to some people, but its social and practical implications are staggering. Whether you want to look at it as the first step toward an enlightened new world free from the trappings of religion and ethics ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) or as another milestone in the moral decay of society, this issue is just one little domino in a long chain of dominoes that lead ultimately to a society completely different from the one we know now. Should personal convictions play a role in your position on this issue? Only if you value playing a part in determining the course of your world over simply telling people what they want to hear and won't get indignant over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
.......Why would someone be interested in the legal contract of marriage if they're not concerned with its cultural or religious significance? ..........
Because that's what all the rights flow from in our society. All the spousal rights a hetero couple has. Health insurance coverage. As you said, gays are already treated with a lot of condescention and ostracism, if not outright hostility. The legal gives them a entrance into the larger society.
I'm just a live & let live type, long as you pull your weight to the best of your ability, I'm cool. I may berate you (not you personally, man) for viewpoints i disagree with, but I envision a world of reasonable equality and cooperation. We may not ever get there, but it's a good goal. So, if it makes gays happy, go for it. It doesn't affect me.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
How can having the same legal rights as hererosexual couples be considered " special rights"? Yes, another one of my virulent "anti-conservative" liberal sites that will undoubtedly be derided and laughed at when not attacked for destroying America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
You are using a faith that is historicaly noted for causing wars, burning witches, and attempting mass genocide to justify the 'evils' homosexuality will wreak on society? And that's not ignorance in it's most blatant form?
I really have nothing against you mate, but please recall that you started this. If the statement that you would actually oppose me, and my freedoms is not a bigger slap than simply referring to you as ignorant...Well you let your christian concience weigh that one out.
And last, before you start singling out homosexuality as the supreme evil in the world, please re-read your bible...as last time I checked, things as common as looking at another woman with desire, having sex before marriage, and judging your fellow man were held on par as 'sins' just as 'evil' and worthy of God's wrath.
|
|
|
|
|
