We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences
along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site
is free and easy, just CLICK
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SFG75, May 29, 2007.
I already have! Several times. :lol:
No, the purpose of laws is not to deny certain desires. The sole purpose of law and government, in the United States, is to protect the right of the individual to self-determination up and until the individual attempts to infringe on the right to self determination of another. Murder is illegal because it infringes upon the right of the would-be victim to want to be alive. The government punishes murder, because the government is protecting would be victims from having their rights violated.
So what if that's what you think? Other people think allowing two men to marry muddies the waters and removes a degree of respectability and importance to marriage. So what? It is not the government's place to interfere. In the US, according to the constitution and the founding fathers, the government's responsibility is to protect the rights of individuals. How is denying gay marriage, polygamy, or inter-species marriage protecting anyone's rights? How do any of these marriage combinations infringe upon anyone's rights? They don't.
You bring up both government and private sector issues. In the case of the government issues, like Social Security, those are already unconstitutional institutions that should also be removed. In the case of private sector issues, such as life insurance claims, then that is the decision of the individual private businesses whether they want to allow Fido to get on the insurance policy or not.
If the slippery slope comment was directed at me, then you're mistaken. I am not using a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope indicates what might happen if we follow a certain path. I am saying what is. The white list exists now, and as a result, everyone not on it is denied. Now. Not what might happen, but what is.
Speaking of what is happening,
I personally know gay couples that have been together longer than I've been alive. Currently they're denied the rights granted to any straight couple that have known each other a year and have forty dollars for a marriage license and a trip to a Justice of the Peace.
The ACLU is at the forefront of nearly every major lawsuit protecting the rights granted in the Constitution. They brought the case that had state bans on interracial marriage declared unconstitutional. Somehow they've failed to notice that government doesn't belong in marriage and "cut off the head." The folks over at the ACLU aren't slouches.
The people who support gay marriage aren't misguided or meanspirited, they're not working to continue to deny alpaca lovers or polygamists their rights. In my state (California) you're in the minority to support gay marriage, and anyone who takes the position publicly is opening themselves up to attack. (Imagine your Catholic boss seeing you on the news at a pro gay marriage demonstration.) These are people sticking their necks out to extend rights they have to people they know.
This is how it's been going in America, every group has had to fight for rights they should have already had. So the choice is to fight that fight and hope the victory comes in your lifetime, or to wait for some kind of great awakening where every private citizen and elected official simultaneously recognizes the full constitutional rights of all citizens.
Jez - How does voting against a specific gay marriage law help further your ideal of removing government from regulating marriage in general?
Nevermind that question Jez. I'm done.
:lol: :lol: Yeah, ok. Keep believing that! :lol:::lol:
No, I wouldn't say many are intentionally meanspirited. Misguided, absolutely. They are not working to deny anyone anything, but the reality is that they are only fighting for one group's rights and saying it's just fine to continue denying every other group. Whether they realize it or not, they are supporting the system that denies them rights, not fighting against it.
And look at all of you making fun of me for advocating for "alpaca lovers" rights. Have you met this kettle over here, Mr. Pot?
Or, option three, which is fight together against the unconstitutional acts of the government.
If each group is forced to fight their own individual fights, one after another, each group separated, then their collective voices are small. If all of the groups joined together and fought against the government behaving unconstitutionally, then the voice would be significantly larger and have more power.
If the law in unconstitutional, then it should be voted against. Once you start allowing unconstitutional laws sometimes, then you automatically invalidate the constitution. It is not a pick and choose kind of document.
Please name the organization(s) that do more legal work on precedent-setting cases protecting constitutional rights.
People working for the rights of gays to marry are, in fact, only saying "gays have the right to marry." There is nothing about saying that that also means, "and it's just fine to continue to deny every other group." There's a law that's denying them that right, and the action is to challenge the constitutionality of it. That's not "supporting" a system, it's operating within the legal framework.
I don't know if you can tell in my text, but I'm not poking fun at you.
Polygamists - grown people who can make their own minds up about who they want to marry. Inheritance, emergency medical decisions - these things don't translate perfectly from a marriage between two people, but something could obviously be worked out.
Alpacas - there are hurdles. They can't express that they wish to be married or even possess the faculties to grasp such a concept. And
the reasons for legally recognized marriages just don't apply to man-alpaca relationships. The alpaca isn't going to need to make
emergency medical decisions for a man, or use his veteran's benefits or inherit his property. And consummating would be illegal in most states.
Each group isn't forced to fight their own fight. And in a perfect world everyone would get together and fight the good fight. Minority groups often have very basic differences with each other or simply don't see themselves as being in similar situations. Also, if a group decides to fight their own little fight, they're free to do it.
Just so it's nice and clear - I'm totally not interested in going on and on, being crappy or insulting or sarcastic, forcing my point of view, and I don't have a compulsion to get in the last word.
That wouldn't be relevant. You said:
They key being that you claim they are at the forefront of nearly every major lawsuit.... They are not. Showing a group that does more proves nothing. If you had said "They are the group, as compared to all other groups, that does the most legal work etc." then providing proof of an alternative group that does more would be relevant. Given what you did say, proof of an alternative group means nothing.
If, for example, the ACLU only fought five topical legal battles, but no one else fought any, then providing a group that did in fact fight more than five would be relevant. Failure or success in finding an alternative group, however, would not change the fact that they only fought five measly battles. So, you see, I hope, how providing an alternative group is irrelevant give our two assertions.
However, you claimed that they were fighting nearly every instance of constitutional rights infringements, and that is not the case at all. If you wanted to challenge my challenge to you, then the correct question for you to ask would be: "Please name the scenarios where constitutional rights were infringed upon and the ACLU did nothing." Now that would be a relevant question (check out second amendment cases, fourth amendment cases, and tenth amendment cases for starters for an answer to that question).
When you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. It works like that. They might not be actively advocating for the system as it stands, but they are not fighting against it, and therefore they are giving their tacit approval to the system. I don't honestly think they are aware of this, but that doesn't change the fact that by not fighting against it, they are allowing it to continue.
Nope, I didn't realize, thank you for clarifying. I take back what I said earlier and apologize for the misunderstanding.
They aren't forced, no one is holding a gun to their head, but because we are approaching this piecemeal without ever addressing the underlying problem, each individual group's win does not change the fact that the other groups still need to make their own fight.
The part I made red is, I think, the crux of the issue and my point. Someone fighting for the right for gays to marry and someone fighting against fourth amendment violations are fighting the same fight, though they rarely realize it. They are both fighting against the government flexing its muscles in ways that are unconstitutional. If people realize that that is the biggest threat to their liberty, then petty differences between groups matter less in light of such common ground.
Thanks for that clarification as well. I am in agreement.
Wow. I realize this is an old thread, but I found it interesting. It was quite a lengthy discourse. Gay marriage is legal here and IMO should be legal everywhere.
Is it legal in some states and not others? I heard a rumour (or perhaps its the truth) that if a gay couple gets married say, in Canada, it would not be recognized as a legal marriage in the US. Why would that be? Does that mean my marriage is subject to the laws of the country I'm in at the time?
I agree with you Alix. Gay marriage should be legal everywhere IMO. In Portugal it's legal since 2010.
We've had same-sex marriages for 3 years now (since May 2009 for civil ceremonies, November 2009 for churches) and so far there hasn't been a single rain of frogs or rampant fucking in the streets. Turns out, same-sex couples are pretty much ordinary people who want the same rights as everyone else. Whodathunkit.
To straight people, this never becomes an issue since pretty much every country on the planet recognizes straight marriages. (The exact legal ramifications of it may change from country to country, though - a wife's position in, say, Saudi Arabia would be very different from the one in, say, Denmark. And I'm not sure if divorces are universally recognized, but since there's basically only one country in the world where divorce is illegal that's probably less of a problem.) But for same-sex marriages, yes, there are still plenty of countries and states that don't recognize them. You can be legally married, then step across a border and have it null and void.
The hell you say!
That is true! Gays can marry in Iowa, but not Nebraska. As soon as they cross into the state, they are not legally recognized as being married. This is very unconstitutional to me as states like Nebraska are technically in violation of the "full faith and credit" clause which stipulates that states will accept and acknowledge contracts made out of state.
People will look back thirty years from now and feel embarrassed by their parents and the politicians who have stalled on this issue.
Holy crap. I just can't imagine visiting a country and having my marriage declared null and void.
Soooo, what happens with common law stuff? Is THAT different all over the place too?
My example would be a married gay couple visits the US from Canada. One partner falls deathly ill and only "family" is allowed in to see them. Would they be allowed to be with their partner or not? If they weren't considered LEGALLY married would they be considered common law?
I just attended a beautiful wedding this summer where the brides were both just stunning. It was such a touching ceremony as they were very openly tender with one another. Not a dry eye in the house.
I really do not understand the opposition here. It seems to me that having people actually WANTING to be married and creating families would be a GOOD thing. Aren't we always bemoaning the fact that the divorce rate is ridiculously high and that children of divorced parents struggle in so many ways? Seems to me, anyone motivated to make such a huge commitment should be encouraged, not penalized.
Anybody stupid enough to get married should be allowed to join in the misery.
Maybe, maybe not.
You'd think so.
Not quite how I'd have put it, but well said.
@beer good, I'll check out those links when I get back.
Separate names with a comma.