Conquer Club

So, Prop 8 was again ruled unconstitutional today in it's latest appeal. In reading the news about it, I kept coming back to a single question -

How is Prop 8 discriminatory?

Discrimination is when you treat one group differently from another group. Proposition 8 states that marriage is defined as one man and one woman committing to each other forever. It does NOT say that gay people can't be married, just that they have to marry somebody of the opposite sex. In fact, proponents of gay marriage are not seeking equal treatment, they are seeking special treatment. They want to be treated differently from straight people, who are only allowed to marry people of the opposite gender.

The thing is, marriage has always been informally defined as between people of opposite genders. It was just never officially written down. Just look at the terms involved - in a wedding, there is a bride and a groom. Two genders are implied there.

Now, I don't buy into the crap that a lot of people spout out, that allowing gay marriage would somehow weaken traditional marriage. I'm not worried about that. Furthermore, if gay people were arguing that their lifelong commitments should be treated the same as marriage currently is by the government, that would be a perfectly valid discrimination argument. I'm not even arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. I'm simply stating that it is NOT an argument of discrimination, but rather an argument of definition change. Gay people want marriage to encompass unions between people of the same gender - they want to change the definition of marriage to include that kind of union. I am perfectly happy with that argument. It just bugs me to see the debate pegged as discriminatory, when to me it is clearly a debate of definition.

Any thoughts?

dwilhelmi wrote:So, Prop 8 was again ruled unconstitutional today in it's latest appeal. In reading the news about it, I kept coming back to a single question -

How is Prop 8 discriminatory?

Discrimination is when you treat one group differently from another group. Proposition 8 states that marriage is defined as one man and one woman committing to each other forever. It does NOT say that gay people can't be married, just that they have to marry somebody of the opposite sex. In fact, proponents of gay marriage are not seeking equal treatment, they are seeking special treatment. They want to be treated differently from straight people, who are only allowed to marry people of the opposite gender.

The thing is, marriage has always been informally defined as between people of opposite genders. It was just never officially written down. Just look at the terms involved - in a wedding, there is a bride and a groom. Two genders are implied there.

Now, I don't buy into the crap that a lot of people spout out, that allowing gay marriage would somehow weaken traditional marriage. I'm not worried about that. Furthermore, if gay people were arguing that their lifelong commitments should be treated the same as marriage currently is by the government, that would be a perfectly valid discrimination argument. I'm not even arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. I'm simply stating that it is NOT an argument of discrimination, but rather an argument of definition change. Gay people want marriage to encompass unions between people of the same gender - they want to change the definition of marriage to include that kind of union. I am perfectly happy with that argument. It just bugs me to see the debate pegged as discriminatory, when to me it is clearly a debate of definition.

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Marriage is not a right.

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

I never said that everyone must be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, I just think that is a different argument. The definition of marriage, at least in the history of this country (which is where the laws in question apply), has been implied to be between people of opposite genders. Therefore, wanting to marry someone of the same gender is equivalent to wanting to change the definition of marriage.

Proposition 8 is not banning gay people from being together, nor is it banning them from devoting themselves to each other for their lifetime. It is simply explicitly defining what has traditionally been implied, which is that marriage is between people of opposite genders.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

You can still speak, assemble, carry a weapon, not incriminate yourself, have a jury trial, not be forced into slavery, vote, drink, and vote directly for senators. In fact, you have every single right mentioned in the Constitution whether you are married or not.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

But don't most of the rights for marriage also apply to civil unions? What if all of the laws did match, exactly? Would that then be sufficient?

That is what I was referring to, in that arguing that homosexual unions should be given equal treatments by the government would in fact be an argument of discrimination. If a government right applies to marriage, the same should apply for any type of civil union, and if it didn't then it would be discrimination and should be changed. That does NOT mean that the definition of marriage should be changed.

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

Why isn't it a right?

Oh look, another thread where bigots try to justify their prejudices.

dwilhelmi wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

But don't most of the rights for marriage also apply to civil unions? What if all of the laws did match, exactly? Would that then be sufficient?

For all but the most extremist (and in my opinion thoroughly idiotic) homosexuals, yes...in fact, that's really all they want. Unfortunately, that is not even condoned at this point.

dwilhelmi wrote:That is what I was referring to, in that arguing that homosexual unions should be given equal treatments by the government would in fact be an argument of discrimination. If a government right applies to marriage, the same should apply for any type of civil union, and if it didn't then it would be discrimination and should be changed. That does NOT mean that the definition of marriage should be changed.

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.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

You can still speak, assemble, carry a weapon, not incriminate yourself, have a jury trial, not be forced into slavery, vote, drink, and vote directly for senators. In fact, you have every single right mentioned in the Constitution whether you are married or not.

Put aside your desire to fall on one particular side of the argument for a moment if you can, when you answer this question...Do you really believe that the ability to make medical decisions about your loved one when they cannot do so isn't or shouldn't be a right?

Evil Semp wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

Why isn't it a right?

Because marriage requires another person to consent to being married. If marriage were a right, then no one who is not already married could deny you marriage if you asked the person to marry you. If they denied you marriage, then they would be infringing on your rights. Only 1 Constitutional right requires some other person to sacrifice their rights in order for you to have yours: the right to a trial by jury. All the other rights, like the one I mentioned in my previous post, only require the government to make sure you can exercise those rights. Marriage requires 2 people (under current definition), so it cannot be a right.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

You can still speak, assemble, carry a weapon, not incriminate yourself, have a jury trial, not be forced into slavery, vote, drink, and vote directly for senators. In fact, you have every single right mentioned in the Constitution whether you are married or not.

Put aside your desire to fall on one particular side of the argument for a moment if you can, when you answer this question...Do you really believe that the ability to make medical decisions about your loved one when they cannot do so isn't a right?

It's not a Constitutional right. It is currently determined implicitly by marriage (or guardianship) or explicitly by documents such as a Power of Attorney. Those are laws that essentially establish a chain of custody for an individual under a variety of circumstances. But those are not rights.

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.

Phatscotty wrote: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.

So much for the 1st Amendment, eh?

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: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.

So much for the 1st Amendment, eh?

-rd

exactly!

the government is too big and infringes on the freedom of religion more and more everyday

natty dread wrote:Oh look, another thread where bigots try to justify their prejudices.

In his defense the OP isn't actually the usual NS-esq diatribe...

Lootifer wrote:

natty dread wrote:Oh look, another thread where bigots try to justify their prejudices.

In his defense the OP isn't actually the usual NS-esq diatribe...

Agreed.

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: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.

So much for the 1st Amendment, eh?

-rd

exactly!

the government is too big and infringes on the freedom of religion more and more everyday

I was referring to the Separation of Church and State, but ok...

-rd

A few preguntas (that's questions in Spanish):

(1) Woodruff - What do you mean by other rights are predicated on marriage?
(2) Anyone - Why do you think this proposition is unconstitutional?
(3) Natty - Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks all the time? If you don't want to see a thread like this, don't post in it anymore.

I think it's a bad law.

thegreekdog wrote:(1) Woodruff - What do you mean by other rights are predicated on marriage?

I've already specified one in this thread...the ability to make medical decisions for a loved one when that individual cannot do so themselves.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(1) Woodruff - What do you mean by other rights are predicated on marriage?

I've already specified one in this thread...the ability to make medical decisions for a loved one when that individual cannot do so themselves.

Yeah, I saw that. How is that a right?

Maybe "legal protection" and "legal freedom" rather than rights per se?

Lootifer wrote:Maybe "legal protection" and "legal freedom" rather than rights per se?

Maybe. Unfortunately, there is no "right to marry" explicitly in the US Constitution. Arguably there are other constitutional provisions that should apply since the government licenses marriages and the like, which is probably why Prop 8 got overturned. I think that's going to be the end result once all the dust clears from the gay marriage issue, namely that to the extent that the state licenses (or approves) marriages, they need to treat everyone equally.

dwilhelmi wrote: The thing is, marriage has always been informally defined as between people of opposite genders. It was just never officially written down. Just look at the terms involved - in a wedding, there is a bride and a groom. Two genders are implied there.

No, actually marriage takes many, many forms.

It is a term used to apply certain rights, usually to define proper inheritance for children and the like. Not so long ago, "bastards" had basically no rights. We now, in this country have rules dictating that you have to support children born outside of wedlock.

It was also a way of conferring the legal care and rights of a woman from their father to another man, because well, of course women were not able to make their own decisions.. could not own property, could not vote, etc. IN some cases am unmarried women could not go out unaccompanied without facing serious reprecussions. Now, in this country, women have status regardless of whether they are married or not. Not necessarily equal status, but status.

It was a term very much applied to one man marrying multiple wives, but that part was taken away in recent US history.

Society is quickly moving to accept and recognize homosexuals much like any other issue -- not necessarily something we want for ourselves or our family, but well... freedom and all that.

EXCEPT.. the right wing cannot have that. So, they pushed for this amendment.

The real question to ask is why other marriage types, recognized world-wide and throughout history should NOT be recognized here? The only real reason is fear and discrimination.

If this action were based on real reasons and evidence, it would not be discrimination. It is based on fear and MISinformation. It is discrimination.

dwilhelmi wrote: Now, I don't buy into the crap that a lot of people spout out, that allowing gay marriage would somehow weaken traditional marriage. I'm not worried about that. Furthermore, if gay people were arguing that their lifelong commitments should be treated the same as marriage currently is by the government, that would be a perfectly valid discrimination argument.

That IS the argument. "Marriage" is a legal union that is instantly recognized and instantly confers many, many rights and privilages from tax breaks, ease of getting a mortgage together, the ability to get spousal health coverage and even the ability to make major medical decisions without having to pay an attorney to draw up tons of documents.. and hope that you can access them if needed. It also works for joint custody of children.

ALL of the above are complicated for homosexuals, even sometimes truly harmful (in medical care and child custody issues).
Denying them legal marriage means they cannot have all that with their life partner, while heterosexuals can.

dwilhelmi wrote: I'm not even arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. I'm simply stating that it is NOT an argument of discrimination, but rather an argument of definition change. Gay people want marriage to encompass unions between people of the same gender - they want to change the definition of marriage to include that kind of union. I am perfectly happy with that argument. It just bugs me to see the debate pegged as discriminatory, when to me it is clearly a debate of definition.

Any thoughts?

No, the anthropoligic and well recognized definition of marriage does not say anything about "one man and one women". It refers to unions that may not even be sexual at all (political unions in some places, for example). No, it is the church that defines that, the Judeo Christian Church specifically, but only some portions of that church (some Christian/Jewish groups accept polygamy or have historically accepted it).