question about gay marriage

[PLAYER57832]

(2) Anyone - Why do you think this proposition is unconstitutional?

Since the government has adopted marriage as an easy way to confer certain rights and privilages, saying those go only to one group of people and not all without a very, very serious and impelling reason would violate the "equal protection" clause.

Also, since this amounts to one/some religious groups trying to limit the definition of marriage to one they like, it is a violation of all people's right to practice their religion the way they wish. Homosexuals are denied the right to do as they wish because it violates some other people's values.

I could also be said to be establishing what is largely a religious recognized situation as something that the state will honor. That is an argument for not having the state recognize any marriage, though. As mentioned in other threads, there are legitimate reasons for the state to recognize unions (children, inheritance, medical decisions). The only real reasons to deny homosexuals acces to those benefits is religion. (ergo.. unconstitutional)

[the carpet man]

i got as far as you stating that gay people should marry people of the opposite gender and i raged. you're an idiot,

[dwilhelmi]

Truly, if people want "marriage" to be pulled out of this argument, the way to do it is to get the government out of marriage. Make it a ceremonial thing only with no governmental requirements or expectations or benefits, and any argument I've got goes away completely.

This is something I could get behind. Or, along a similar vein, change the laws that give benefits to "marriage" into giving those same benefits to "civil unions", and then make marriage just a kind of civil union. From the eyes of the government, any lifelong union between two people gets the same benefits. I would completely agree with a course of action like that.

I think a lot of other people could agree with that as well. There are a lot of people out there that don't agree with their definition of marriage getting messed with that at the same time would support 100% a movement to get other relationships recognized as well. Prop 8 isn't, as far as I can tell, about not allowing homosexuals to be in the relationships that they want, or even about making sure they don't get government benefits. It is solely about trying to maintain a definition that the majority of voters agree with. I just don't see that as discrimination.

[QoH]

Marriage is a religious tradition. Only when the government got too big and they started issuing licenses and tax structures (control) based around it did it start to become a government issue.

Actually... no it wasn't. Wow, I'm actually using some random ass stuff from my religion class...

It started out as a way to build communities (reduce spread of diseases, protect ppl etc.) and only in like the 11th c did the church start getting involved, and it wasn't even an official sacrament until somewhere around the 14th c I think. Kinda hazy, been a while, but I do know this much-Marriage was not, for a long time, affiliated with religion.

[narthuro]

Truly, if people want "marriage" to be pulled out of this argument, the way to do it is to get the government out of marriage. Make it a ceremonial thing only with no governmental requirements or expectations or benefits, and any argument I've got goes away completely.

This is something I could get behind. Or, along a similar vein, change the laws that give benefits to "marriage" into giving those same benefits to "civil unions", and then make marriage just a kind of civil union. From the eyes of the government, any lifelong union between two people gets the same benefits. I would completely agree with a course of action like that.

I think a lot of other people could agree with that as well. There are a lot of people out there that don't agree with their definition of marriage getting messed with that at the same time would support 100% a movement to get other relationships recognized as well. Prop 8 isn't, as far as I can tell, about not allowing homosexuals to be in the relationships that they want, or even about making sure they don't get government benefits. It is solely about trying to maintain a definition that the majority of voters agree with. I just don't see that as discrimination.

I do agree with this, but then you have to define the parameters of "civil unions." My mother is together with a man, they live together, but after her first divorce she doesn't plan on getting married. If they wanted to enter into a civil union, would giving them the same rights as married people de-value the "institution of marriage?" I don't agree with that line of thinking, but there are certainly people that would.

[thegreekdog]

(2) Anyone - Why do you think this proposition is unconstitutional?

Since the government has adopted marriage as an easy way to confer certain rights and privilages, saying those go only to one group of people and not all without a very, very serious and impelling reason would violate the "equal protection" clause.

Also, since this amounts to one/some religious groups trying to limit the definition of marriage to one they like, it is a violation of all people's right to practice their religion the way they wish. Homosexuals are denied the right to do as they wish because it violates some other people's values.

I could also be said to be establishing what is largely a religious recognized situation as something that the state will honor. That is an argument for not having the state recognize any marriage, though. As mentioned in other threads, there are legitimate reasons for the state to recognize unions (children, inheritance, medical decisions). The only real reasons to deny homosexuals acces to those benefits is religion. (ergo.. unconstitutional)

Again, I don't disagree that there are certain government-provided privileges that go along with marriage. They aren't, however, rights. The term "right" is a very strong word that has a specific meaning. You're using it incorrectly.

[PLAYER57832]

Marriage is a religious tradition. Only when the government got too big and they started issuing licenses and tax structures (control) based around it did it start to become a government issue.

Actually... no it wasn't. Wow, I'm actually using some random ass stuff from my religion class...

It started out as a way to build communities (reduce spread of diseases, protect ppl etc.) and only in like the 11th c did the church start getting involved, and it wasn't even an official sacrament until somewhere around the 14th c I think. Kinda hazy, been a while, but I do know this much-Marriage was not, for a long time, affiliated with religion.

You refer only to the west and Christian recognition. It predates the 11th century by a LONG stretch.
Among other issues, Jews, Ancient Romans.. even the Maya had marriages.

[PLAYER57832]

(2) Anyone - Why do you think this proposition is unconstitutional?

Since the government has adopted marriage as an easy way to confer certain rights and privilages, saying those go only to one group of people and not all without a very, very serious and impelling reason would violate the "equal protection" clause.

Also, since this amounts to one/some religious groups trying to limit the definition of marriage to one they like, it is a violation of all people's right to practice their religion the way they wish. Homosexuals are denied the right to do as they wish because it violates some other people's values.

I could also be said to be establishing what is largely a religious recognized situation as something that the state will honor. That is an argument for not having the state recognize any marriage, though. As mentioned in other threads, there are legitimate reasons for the state to recognize unions (children, inheritance, medical decisions). The only real reasons to deny homosexuals acces to those benefits is religion. (ergo.. unconstitutional)

Again, I don't disagree that there are certain government-provided privileges that go along with marriage. They aren't, however, rights. The term "right" is a very strong word that has a specific meaning. You're using it incorrectly.

No, I don't believe I referred to marriage as a right at all.

I said that the government uses the institution as a convenient way to honor some rights and privilages. I probably should have said "administer" or "acknowledge" when it comes to the rights bit. The rights I meant were the rights of children in custody issues, rights to make medical decisions. (which are not strictly constitutional rights, but I would say are basic human rights). Anyway, the unconstitutional part is that the government is accepting some people's idea of marriage for that purpose and not other people's, without any real and overriding reason. It is therefore unequally protecting some people's beliefs over others.


The only "reason" is that some people feel it violates THEIR religion.. not a basis for forbidding anyone things under our law.

[PLAYER57832]

Truly, if people want "marriage" to be pulled out of this argument, the way to do it is to get the government out of marriage. Make it a ceremonial thing only with no governmental requirements or expectations or benefits, and any argument I've got goes away completely.

This is something I could get behind. Or, along a similar vein, change the laws that give benefits to "marriage" into giving those same benefits to "civil unions", and then make marriage just a kind of civil union. From the eyes of the government, any lifelong union between two people gets the same benefits. I would completely agree with a course of action like that.

I think a lot of other people could agree with that as well. There are a lot of people out there that don't agree with their definition of marriage getting messed with that at the same time would support 100% a movement to get other relationships recognized as well. Prop 8 isn't, as far as I can tell, about not allowing homosexuals to be in the relationships that they want, or even about making sure they don't get government benefits. It is solely about trying to maintain a definition that the majority of voters agree with. I just don't see that as discrimination.

This IS a good solution. A lot of Europe basically does this. You can get married in a church, but its only when you go to the "courthouse" (or the designated office) to register that you are "official".

I think one European country has such unions that don't even infer any kind of sexual union. The idea was that one person would automatically be able to buy things together with the other person, make legal decisions in illness, etc.

[natty dread]

A lot of Europe basically does this.

It does?

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of Europe basically does this.

It does?

In Scandinavia, they do. I believe Holland does. The civil union and the religious marriage part are kept seperate. People get married, but it takes the paperwork to make it official.

In the US.. we get a "license", but then the actual marriage is either performed in a church or the justice. Clergy are awarded the ability to perform this service within their religions in this country... ergo the "by the powers vested in me.. by the state.." So, yes, it is a difference.

[natty dread]

In Scandinavia, they do.

I haven't heard. Can you provide some references for this?

[PLAYER57832]

In Scandinavia, they do.

I haven't heard. Can you provide some references for this?

I have to clarify here. The term "marriage" still mostly refers to a man and woman. However, the term doesn't carry the heavy weight that it does here.

Where I lived (over 30 years ago), it was mostly used as a way to "legitimize" children/appease parents unless the couple were involved with a church themselves. (by "legitimize", I mean practical legal stuff, not social views). This well predated the whole homosexual awareness deal, though.

When I googled, I found a lot of variations on the term "civil union". Most countries in Europe do seem to recognize some form of homosexual partnership. (Wikki cites 1989 as the turning point). However, they have varying names and whether they are exactly the same as marriage or not varies.

So, in reference to homosexuals, no, its not entirely as above. However, in reference to heterosexual unions, the legal part is done in an office or such, not usually in church.

[JoshyBoy]

If everyone in 1853 or 1933 was gay, we wouldn't be here today, and if we were we'd be here and queer.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve.

Madam, I'm Adam backwards can be made into Madam I'm Adam.

Eleven plus two (11+2 = 13, 13 letters) can be changed to Twelve plus one (12+1 = 13, also 13 letters).

Quick change acts add on loads of clothes before subtracting them again.

Change can happen to anyone, even fictional characters like Pinocchio, whose nose can be added to or subtracted from.

Here's a paradox thingy... If Pinocchio said "My nose will grow now.", what the f*ck would happen??

[PLAYER57832]

If everyone in 1853 or 1933 was gay, we wouldn't be here today, and if we were we'd be here and queer.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve.

Madam, I'm Adam backwards can be made into Madam I'm Adam.

Eleven plus two (11+2 = 13, 13 letters) can be changed to Twelve plus one (12+1 = 13, also 13 letters).

Quick change acts add on loads of clothes before subtracting them again.

Change can happen to anyone, even fictional characters like Pinocchio, whose nose can be added to or subtracted from.

Here's a paradox thingy... If Pinocchio said "My nose will grow now.", what the f*ck would happen??

And this is important to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry how, exactly?

Are you somehow suggesting that allowing homosexuals to marry will mean there will be more homosexuals?

[natty dread]

He's trolling, silly.

[PLAYER57832]

He's trolling, silly.

Of course. But it is also very much the type of arguments I hear just about everyday around here... so, not so silly, really.

[the carpet man]

the thing about gay marriage is i do not mind if people do different things to me. it does not affect me if they want to do bum - like, why should i care if they make a different lifestyle choice to me? i could never oppose gay because there is no point. it is not harmful to anyone else.

but then, i am straight so i do not care about gay rights at all. it does not affect me. it is like asking me to care about the rights of sea mammals or amazonian tree moss. it is irrelevant. if gay is illegal or lynched then that is sad but also there is no danger to me. so i do not mind so much.

so, beyond voicing my casual opinion that i have no problem with 'gay marriage', i cannot muster the energy to care.

but then, that is the average voter? indifferent

[PLAYER57832]

the thing about gay marriage is i do not mind if people do different things to me. it does not affect me if they want to do bum - like, why should i care if they make a different lifestyle choice to me? i could never oppose gay because there is no point. it is not harmful to anyone else.

but then, i am straight so i do not care about gay rights at all. it does not affect me. it is like asking me to care about the rights of sea mammals or amazonian tree moss. it is irrelevant. if gay is illegal or lynched then that is sad but also there is no danger to me. so i do not mind so much.

so, beyond voicing my casual opinion that i have no problem with 'gay marriage', i cannot muster the energy to care.

but then, that is the average voter? indifferent

There is a poem about this.. rather a famous one. Sure, you cannot spend your life dedicated to a cause in which you do not believe. However, if you don't at least pay a little attention to the state of the Amazon.. you may find some serious ecological and weather consequences that absolutely DO impact you. Similarly, rights and privilages are subject to "creep". Folks start by depriving a few smaller, less popular groups and THEN move in to everyone.

The history is pretty clear.. be it the McCarthy era black balls, or the dust bowl of the great depression. None of us lives in isolation. In the age of the internet, information is so readily available that there are few excuses for not being moderately (or at least minimally) informed and concerned.

[the carpet man]

i think there is a difference between gay people and dustbowls. one is a lifestyle choice that does not affect others, the other is a weather hazard that caused poverty and decline for many innocent farmers. you should not compare the two.

there is no danger of gay people losing their rights. this 2012. society can afford to not care.

[natty dread]

but then, i am straight so i do not care about gay rights at all. it does not affect me. it is like asking me to care about the rights of sea mammals or amazonian tree moss. it is irrelevant. if gay is illegal or lynched then that is sad but also there is no danger to me. so i do not mind so much.

So, it seems like you're a selfish douchebag. How does that work out for you?

[the carpet man]

there is no need to be offensive. it 'seems' that you care about issues that don't affect you, but i do not. focusing on my own life is working out well for me.

is it not possible that, as someone who has always been a straight male, i do not have the understanding necessary to make a valid input to a debate on the lives of gay people? i would not tell someone from another country, or someone who is religious, how to live their life, because i do not truly understand their context. for this reason i do not say what gay people 'should' or 'should not' be able to do, because i do not know.

[PLAYER57832]

is it not possible that, as someone who has always been a straight male, i do not have the understanding necessary to make a valid input to a debate on the lives of gay people? i would not tell someone from another country, or someone who is religious, how to live their life, because i do not truly understand their context. for this reason i do not say what gay people 'should' or 'should not' be able to do, because i do not know.

This is reasonable, to a point. However, as noted, oppression of ANY group, at least in your own country, should be of concern to all, becuase such things just wind up growing and spreading.

And that bit about the Amazon... you do breath air from the Amazon. That, too, is worth remembering, even if its not something you need to worry about every day. You should think about it when making decisions that might even tangentially impact the area.

[natty dread]

there is no need to be offensive.

I'm not, just stating a fact. It does seem like you're a selfish douchebag. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you shouldn't say things that make it seem like you're a selfish douchebag.

[Woodruff]

there is no need to be offensive. it 'seems' that you care about issues that don't affect you, but i do not.

You may believe that such issues don't affect you, but they undoubtedly do. There are very few issues in the world that don't impact most people in the first world, at least (admittedly usually in fairly minor ways). You're most likely just overlooking the ways in which they do.