With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."
Of course either sounds better than something along the lines of:
"With funding from a lot of individual members of the various African-American churches, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement."Mormon church is ok to critize, African-American churches not so much.
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)
Actually, if you look at the history, when the No-Fault divorces become the standard, that is when divorce rates shot up. So the ease or difficulty of divorce certainly has had an effect on marriages. Of course if that is a bad thing or not is an entirely different issue. I would say our society is going through a transition period with respect to the roles of men and women, and we haven't quite reach the point where things have stablized. For example, if you look at higher education rates, women are increasing in number while men are decreasing. What effect that will have on society has yet to be seen. We may in 20-40 years see a complete reversal of the current power positions with women being the dominate players and men being the rare exception. Education is a powerful tool.
From my understanding of the way our government "SHOULD!!!" be run it is majority rules but minority rights. The judges are the power to make sure that the majority dosen't totally overrun the minority.
Thank you, Steven! We live in a representative republic, not a strict "democracy." That means that this whole idea being promulgated by a few people upthread that, basically, "the minority are there to suck it up and be the slaves of their more popular peers" is NOT the law of the land in the U.S. (David -- please come back -- you explain this stuff better than I do!) Go back and read some of the Framers' letters if the idea is unclear. Or read the bill of rights and think about WHY those amendments are there, instead of simply memorizing what they say.
For example, if you look at higher education rates, women are increasing in number while men are decreasing. What effect that will have on society has yet to be seen. We may in 20-40 years see a complete reversal of the current power positions with women being the dominate players and men being the rare exception. Education is a powerful tool.
For women, maybe.
Blacks, not so much...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html
I removed a post. It's all fun and games until the name calling starts.
|
From my understanding of the way our government "SHOULD!!!" be run it is majority rules but minority rights. The judges are the power to make sure that the majority dosen't totally overrun the minority.Thank you, Steven! We live in a representative republic, not a strict "democracy." That means that this whole idea being promulgated by a few people upthread that, basically, "the minority are there to suck it up and be the slaves of their more popular peers" is NOT the law of the land in the U.S. (David -- please come back -- you explain this stuff better than I do!) Go back and read some of the Framers' letters if the idea is unclear.
Actually I would refer to Alexis de Tocqeville on this issue. Here are some things he said that seem particularly relevent in this case.
"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
"The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections.”
“Consider any individual at any period of his life, and you will always find him preoccupied with fresh plans to increase his comfort.”
“When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, if afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest.”
“An American cannot converse, but he can discuss, and his talk falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to become warm in the discussion, he will say ''Gentlemen'' to the person with whom he is conversing.”
I would encourage you to take some time and really think about what Tocqueville is saying here. The realizations you come to may surprise you.
Except the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Ignore and/or keep misinterpreting those.
1st -- Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all made it abundantly clear that the establishment clause was indeed intended to cut both ways; Jefferson himself coined the "eternal wall of separation" phrase. No misinterpreting or ignoring there.
2nd -- Garbled sentence structure, but it's been more or less settled that the "well-regulated militia" doesn't circumvent the "right of the people shall not be infringed."
9th -- "Others retained" refers to other rights, not infringement of the rights granted by the Constitution. Nowhere in settled law is the infringement of a legal right retained by Party B considered an established right of Party A.
10th -- That's the one that bears looking at -- whether the Constitution in fact grants the rights we're talking about here. In terms of interpretation, look at Amendment 14, for example, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This specifically enumerates a Constitutional right which states have no power to circumvent, implying that the 10th amendment does not overrule the rest of the Constitution.
In short, if you're accusing someone of ignoring and/or misinterpreting amendments, I hope it's not me -- at least not without some clear examples of where you think I"ve gone astray.
|
Except the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Ignore and/or keep misinterpreting those.1st -- Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all made it abundantly clear that the establishment clause was indeed intended to cut both ways; Jefferson himself coined the "eternal wall of separation" phrase. No misinterpreting or ignoring there.
2nd -- Garbled sentence structure, but it's been more or less settled that the "well-regulated militia" doesn't circumvent the "right of the people shall not be infringed."
9th -- "Others retained" refers to other rights, not infringement of the rights granted by the Constitution. Nowhere in settled law is the infringement of a legal right retained by Party B considered an established right of Party A.
10th -- That's the one you need to look at -- whether the Constitution in fact grants the rights we're talking about here. In terms of interpretation, look at Amendment 14, for example, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This specifically enumerates a Constitutional right which states have no power to circumvent.
1st: Yeah, but tell that to the (m)asses.
2nd: Ditto.
9th: Redheaded stepchild of Amendments. Often overlooked in any debate.
10th: Ditto, and, frankly, the 14th is the Treaty of Versailles of Amendments. Until that point, the Constitutional Amendments described what the Federal government couldn't do. That was the first step towards the mess we have today, and a definite step away from any Jeffersonian influence left in our government.
From an unknown comic:
All I know is that gay marriage makes a mockery of all five of my marriages.
|
|
In short, if you're accusing someone of ignoring and/or misinterpreting amendments, I hope it's not me -- at least not without some clear examples of where you think I"ve gone astray.
No, not you (we've discussed this enough in real life that you should take that as axiomatic), society in general. I could fill three oceans with what people in this country don't know about the Constitution...
you should take that as axiomatic
Word. I'm getting geared up for tonight's game -- given the setting, my head is full of things that are anarchic, rather than axiomatic, and everything is starting to look like a dueling challenge...
P.S. See the "connection" thread -- new update posted.
I removed a post. It's all fun and games until the name calling starts.
]Holds up a ballpoint pen. Can everyone look this way for a second?
For example, if you look at higher education rates, women are increasing in number while men are decreasing. What effect that will have on society has yet to be seen. We may in 20-40 years see a complete reversal of the current power positions with women being the dominate players and men being the rare exception. Education is a powerful tool.For women, maybe.
Blacks, not so much...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html
Well men aren't doing as well as women in the recession overall anyway.
I would be interested in seeing some that dicuss black women in particular. How they are fairing. Are they more like women of other races or more like black men in the current economy? Which is more of a current factor race or gender?
From an unknown comic:
All I know is that gay marriage makes a mockery of all five of my marriages.
(tounge firmly planted in cheek)
Dude 5 failed marrigaes thats harsh. What do you say you make the switch and ditch the b*tch, ya never know till you try, right.
10th: Ditto, and, frankly, the 14th is the Treaty of Versailles of Amendments. Until that point, the Constitutional Amendments described what the Federal government couldn't do. That was the first step towards the mess we have today, and a definite step away from any Jeffersonian influence left in our government.
I'd call the 14th the first amendment that wasn't a sick mockery of the very concept of rights. As long as states could ignore the Bill of Rights at will it has no effective power, considering the vast majority lived in a state. ("I have a right! Washington says so." "Yeah, while your problem is with Boston, not Washington.") Until it was passed, all the good stuff in the Bill of Rights was neither granted nor recognized, but in fact entombed as surely as rights were entombed in Soviet constitutions.
|
|
Samnell, the Constitution doesn't (or didn't) grant rights, it enumerated rights that existed that the Federal government could not abridge. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments basically designated that anything not covered in the Articles and other amendments were either under the jurisdiction of a) the individual, or b) the States. Very un-Soviet. The 14th Amendment didn't do anything the previous thirteen didn't already do, it was just the first step towards complete hegemony over American life by the Federal government. The 17th Amendment actually did more to destroy the concept of State's rights than did the 14th, but that's another discussion all together.
Basically, Amendments 3 through 7 do everything the 14th purports to, after the 13th was ratified.
The 14th Amendment, with guest commentary:
Already covered in Amendments 3-7, didn't need this if Amendment 13 was just enforced.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Also unnecessary after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Treaty of Versailles stuff in this part. Has nothing to do with "equal rights".
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
This doesn't even belong here. This one part alone has Jefferson rolling in his grave.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Again, if they had just enforced the Thirteenth, parts 1 and 2 of this Amendment are completely redundant.
Sorry, don't get it.
With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."Of course either sounds better than something along the lines of:
"With funding from a lot of individual members of the various African-American churches, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement."Mormon church is ok to critize, African-American churches not so much.
I have no problem critizing any church that tries to deny equal rights by trying to influence a voting process, no matter if it's an African-American, Mormon church, Wiccan... covenant? or Scientology temple. But David took issue with the portrayal of the Mormon church's involvement, hence that was what I addressed.
|
|
I have no problem critizing any church that tries to deny equal rights by trying to influence a voting process, no matter if it's an African-American, Mormon church, Wiccan... covenant? or Scientology temple. But David took issue with the portrayal of the Mormon church's involvement, hence that was what I addressed.With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."Of course either sounds better than something along the lines of:
"With funding from a lot of individual members of the various African-American churches, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement."Mormon church is ok to critize, African-American churches not so much.
Actually I only took offense to the fact that the Mormon Church was singled out when a broad coalition was pushing Prop. 8 including, according to CNN, a group of athiest gay rights activists who oppose government supporting what has been historically a religious rite.
Actually I only took offense to the fact that the Mormon Church was singled out when a broad coalition was pushing Prop. 8 including, according to CNN, a group of athiest gay rights activists who oppose government supporting what has been historically a religious rite.
I apologize for misreading your statement then. I have a feeling (which might be wrong), though, that the atheist gay rights activists you mention put anything into the funding that even reaches the knees of the various church backed financial supporters.
|
|
Actually I only took offense to the fact that the Mormon Church was singled out when a broad coalition was pushing Prop. 8 including, according to CNN, a group of athiest gay rights activists who oppose government supporting what has been historically a religious rite.I apologize for misreading your statement then. I have a feeling (which might be wrong), though, that the atheist gay rights activists you mention put anything into the funding that even reaches the knees of the various church backed financial supporters.
It is most likely true that they did ot provide the level of support that others did, but they did support it. Not all Mormons were for Prop 8 either. Ultimately that is the problem we as a society run into when we lump together with labels. Not all Christians oppose gay marriage, and not all homosexuals support it. That is why it doesn't help to point fingers.
My dog and my goldfish are getting married.
Warning: Incoming wall of text.
:-)
Well, let's see....where to start?
How about with this:
I firmly reject the tenets of rigid Originalism in regards to the U.S. Constitution.
Fine. I am not arguing based upon rigid "originalism" of the constitution...
Now for these two which appear to be related:
Originally in the U.S., there were laws preventing a Caucasian person from marrying a non-Caucasian person...
So, you consider it ok to deny the recognition of a marriage between a same-sex couple because that couple already has the right to marry opposite-sex partners?
and
If you accept that argument, then you must also accept the following:Both white and black people can marry their own kind and gain the benefits that the law accords to marriage. Both are legally barred from marrying the other. Since white can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks, there's no equal protection violation. They can both get the benefits of marriage so there's no need to allow mixed-race marriages.
That was the argument for the ban on interracial marriage, thought for thought. Do you accept it? If you don't, why should you expect us to?
The two statements above are classic examples of the strawman argument. They bring up a point, mistakenly argue that it is equivalent, and then beat down the point which is supposed to be equivalent without touching the point of contention.
The contract of marriage is defined by its definitiuon. It is the union of a man and a woman.
When the laws were written, the word was defined in the common usage as being the union of a man and a woman.
When the laws were written, the definition the law used was that of the common usage: a union between a man and a woman.
At the time the laws were written, the union between a white man and a white woman was referred to as a marriage because it fit the common definition of a marriage. The law used that common definition and recognized that union as a marriage for a white man and a white woman.
At the time the laws were written, the union between a black man and a black woman was referred to as a marriage because it fit the common definition of marriage. The law used that common definition and recognized that union as a marriage for a black man and a black woman.
At the time the laws were written, the union between a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) fit the common definition of marriage. The law used that common definition and did not recognize that union as a marriage for a black man and a white woman (or vice versa).
Therefore it was a constitutional violation. A union between a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) met the definition used for marriage and it was denied by the law based upon race. Constitutional violation.
The union of two men or the union of two women does not meet the definition used commonly when the laws were made which is the definition that is legally applied to them. Therefore the union is not a marriage. The government is not constitutionally obliged to legally treat the union as a marriage because it is not a marriage according to the definition when the laws were written.
Note: This is not an argument based upon the "originalism" of the constitution. It is an argument based upon the meaning of words used in law. Those meanings remain frozen unless changed by law. Why? Because language in the common usage (outside of law) changes slowly in some places and faster than others. Therefore, there would be discrepancies in applications of the law between locales that used definitions that were different. The definitions used must remain constant with respect to the law passed in order for some semblance of cohesiveness to be made from it. Without it, the use of "precedent" would be diminished to virtually nothingness. And so on and so on...
But, to sum up, denying a black man the ability to marry a white woman (and vice versa) is denying those two access to the recognition of their union which met the definition used to determine recognition of marriage. Denying state recognition to a union between two men or between two women is not denying the ability to participate in a union that meets the definition of marriage.
Next on the list:
Marriage is government-recognized contract between two consenting adults in which they both agree to a very long list of rights (and some responsibilities) that they will share with their partner. We, the citizens of the U.S., have already moved beyond the "original definition" of marriage when we recognized the rights of people of different skin colors to marry.
Put simply, this is inaccurate. The original definition was a union between a man and a woman. The laws restricting interracial marriage were not the origin of the definition but rather a restriction of the definition. The removal of the laws returned the definition to that between a man and a woman.
So, moving past such laws does not somehow suddenly include same sex couples in the definition of marriage.
Note: See above for the legal wrangling.
Next:
I'm not going to touch your point(s) involving child-rearing and economics beyond simply restating that 1) a loving, responsible, and nurturing same-sex couple can provide the same positive child-rearing environment as an opposite-sex couple, and 2) child-rearing is not a...
I agree, but this response is a dodge. My point did not state or imply they could not do so.
My point was that society recognizes that it (at the very least) tends to pigeon hole men to act in a particular fashion. Society recognizes that it (at the very least) tends to pigeon hole women to act in a particular fashion. Society has specifically recognized that these tendencies often lead to discrepancies in power between men and women in marriages (as defined above) and has taken steps to alleviate problems resulting from this. This is the basis for many laws regarding marriage.
Discussion of society's role:
Men tend to earn more money (including jobs with benefits such as insurance) in the U.S. The difference was even more statistically significant in the past when such laws were passed. This meant that often the woman in a relationship would be the primary caregiver and would not have the financial means (nor skilled job training) to strike out on her own. Thus she would often be forced to remain in abusive relationships. This was especially true with the involvement of children. The division of assets for a marriage was made due to the fact that women were often short changed due to being the primary caregiver. This was especially true with respect to common law marriages before the availability of DNA testing for paternity.
In a union between two men or between two women there is not a tendency for one particular side to not have equal economic potential based upon sex because both are the same sex. The innate tendency for men to have an advantage in abusively controlling a relationship over a woman is nullified because both members of the union are either men or both are women. Note: These tendencies have adjusted with time but their original distribution is the cause for many laws.
Procreation is another important factor regarding marriage. The loss of the ability to father (or mother) a child is sufficient for obtaining a divorce even in states with (relatively) strict divorce laws. This is despite the fact that a third party option (adoption, sperm donor, egg surrogate, etc.) is available. A distinct difference with same sex couples is that the only method available for bringing children into a relationship is through a third party member.
These are merely two points to illustrate some of the differences between a union between a man and a woman and a union between two same sex partners. They are not the same thing and that is why they are not recognized the as the same by the law.
I'll meet you half-way, Thing: I'll stop pushing for recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in the U.S. when the Federal and all state governments recognize civil unions (between any two consenting adults, regardless of sex or sexual orientation) as having all the same rights as a marriage between an opposite-sex couple.
This is disingenuous.
You state that you will meet me half-way and define that as follows: you will stop pushing for the federal government to recognize civil unions of same sex couples as marriages (with the recognition resulting in these unions gaining all the rights of marriage) if the government will give all the rights of marriage to the civil unions between same sex couples.
There is no half-way here.
The unions should not be treated as the same thing because they are not the same thing.
Now for a few odds and ends...
The government is essentially refusing to recognize these religiously ordained marriages, but is explicitly endorsing marriages ordained by other faiths. In other words, the government is making laws that favor one religion over another.
No, the government is merely continuing to enforce the law based upon the definition of marriage as it was used when the laws were written.
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)
It should be noted that such a referendum is gathering signatures in California, I believe. But, it is a sarcastic (similar to the post above) publicity stunt.
However, there is a significant problem with such sarcastic logic. Not allowing divorce will allow the unstoppable perpetuation of abusive relationships which have time and again led to violence up to and including murder. The sanctity of marriage is a small price to pay for the sanctity of life.
Well, that is about it for now.
@ Ambrose Slaad
I missed this bit from the original link you posted:
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.
I would not support a bill that completely bans same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.
note: I edited by removing a line at 2012 eastern time on 12/07/09
Samnell, the Constitution doesn't (or didn't) grant rights, it enumerated rights that existed that the Federal government could not abridge.
The enumeration of a right by the state is the act of granting it. If you don't believe me, go to Saudi Arabia and try to exert your right to be anything but a Muslim. Rights aren't platonic ideals, but rather legal realities. They do not exist until granted, however one wants to dress the language up. One may, and should, argue that people are entitled to certain rights which they do not enjoy presently, of course. You can say you have any right you want, but if the state disagrees with you then it wins however we might prefer otherwise.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments basically designated that anything not covered in the Articles and other amendments were either under the jurisdiction of a) the individual, or b) the States. Very un-Soviet. The 14th Amendment didn't do anything the previous thirteen didn't already do, it was just the first step towards complete hegemony over American life by the Federal government. The 17th Amendment actually did more to destroy the concept of State's rights than did the 14th, but that's another discussion all together.
The concept of states' rights can't be betrayed often enough in my book. Better to have no states at all. But that's rightly a separate topic.
You are arguing, if I understand you right, that the Bill of Rights was already in operation with regard to the states and binding upon them prior to the 14th's passage. I would actually agree with you under the Supremacy Clause that that should be the case. However, more or less the entire body of pre-Civil War jurisprudence could not have disagreed more strongly.
The Congress was barred from, for example, establishing a religion. The states were not and did, or continued the establishments they already had. The federal government was restrained by the Bill of Rights, sure. But insofar as virtually all people lived in a state (or something soon to become one) and the states were in fact empowered to and allowed to infringe on the entire Bill of Rights if they so wished, those federal guarantees were not worth the paper they were printed on. States did in fact routinely infringe on the the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US. The progress of civil rights in the US has largely been the story of forcing them to stop.
The 13th abolish slavery and nothing else. It didn't even make the freedmen citizens. Its enforcement would not have done so and in fact it was enforced. It did not grant any right to vote to anybody. You wouldn't believe what kind of chicanery states got away with. South Carolina did not hold any federal election until 1860. The legislature simply appointed a slate of electors however it liked.
Section 3 was passed because the southern states sent representatives who decided to appear in full Confederate uniform. Having just won a war against such people, it's not crazy to want to bar them from continuing the war through other means. Which as it happens, they did. This eventually came to involve the wearing of white hoods. And in the longer term, they succeeded in most of their aims so we ended up with the same issues again a century later.
I understand how a person can, looking at the Constitution in isolation, think that the 14th was a terrible idea that did nothing but grant what had already been granted. But the history of the matter is very different, as discussed here and here. (If you'd rather video, you can also watch the lectures being given. Most of his visual aids aren't shown, but he's a decently engaging lecturer.)
I haven't read it in full, but the Wikipedia history of the relevant clauses looks pretty good too.
I'm not going to attempt to respond to the entire post. Instead I'll focus on the central point.
The contract of marriage is defined by its definitiuon. It is the union of a man and a woman.
When the laws were written, the word was defined in the common usage as being the union of a man and a woman.
When the laws were written, the definition the law used was that of the common usage: a union between a man and a woman.
When the laws were written, the contract of marriage was defined as a union between a man and woman of the same race. I'm sure you can Google the relevant laws and find them yourself. Mixed-race couples simply did not fit the traditional and legal definition of marriage. In fact, racial restraints on marriage do go back to time immemorial, just as gender quotas do.
If you accept the premise that the law being constituted in such a way since time immemorial makes it just, then you don't have to just support bans on interracial marriage. You also have to support slavery, spousal rape, and a wide panoply of other terrible things. Antiquity is neither a moral nor a sufficient legal argument to justify much of anything.
If you are prepared to accept that we rightly changed laws with regards to interracial marriage (and how else do you explain the Loving case?), then you need to find some new reason to object to changing them again. You're already on board with changes, so you can't object just because it's a change.
When the laws were written, the contract of marriage was defined as a union between a man and woman of the same race. I'm sure you can Google the relevant laws and find them yourself.
I specifically stated that the common definition was for a union between a man and a woman. This included blacks. I also specifically stated that the laws denied the marriage of interracial couples. Marriage was not denied to same race couples whether they were white or black. Nothing in your link or that you have stated implies that the common usage of the term did not include marriage between blacks or that the common usage of the term was a man and a woman to the exclusion of interracial couples.
I specifically stated that the common definition was for a union between a man and a woman. This included blacks. I also specifically stated that the laws denied the marriage of interracial couples. Marriage was not denied to same race couples whether they were white or black. Nothing in your link or that you have stated implies that the common usage of the term did not include marriage between blacks or that the common usage of the term was a man and a woman to the exclusion of interracial couples.
Well not if you close your eyes and keep saying to yourself how you just don't believe me. But the fact that it required a Supreme Court case to overturn interracial marriage bans is prima facie evidence that the legal reality did not permit marriage between people of different races. Common usage of the term in Virginia at the time absolutely did not include mixed-race couples. Are you going to admit to this?
Because Virginia argued in Loving that the ban was constitutional on the grounds that it fell on whites and blacks equally. Neither one could marry the other, therefore all was equal.
Am I asking too much to get you to own up to this? And maybe to admit that conventionality is not a legal or moral black check? Because, dude, common usage changes about as frequently as the law does. Don't believe me? Look at historical ages of consent.
You continue to make invalid claims:
you continue to make invalid statements:
Well not if you close your eyes and keep saying to yourself how you just don't believe me. But the fact that it required a Supreme Court case to overturn interracial marriage bans is prima facie evidence that the legal reality did not permit marriage between people of different races. Common usage of the term in Virginia at the time absolutely did not include mixed-race couples. Are you going to admit to this?Because Virginia argued in Loving that the ban was constitutional on the grounds that it fell on whites and blacks equally. Neither one could marry the other, therefore all was equal.
Again with the strawman.
A white man can marry a white woman. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
A black man can marry a black woman. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
A black man cannot marry a white woman and vice versa. A union between a man and a woman is not a marriage.
The definition is applicable to the two separate cases but is changed when the race is changed.
A man can marry a woman. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
A man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman. A marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
There is no change in definition of the term "marriage" in order to exclude people based upon sex. It is the initial definition that excludes same sex couples.
The original definition of marriage commonly used (prior to passage of the anti-miscegination bills) did include same race couples but institutionalized racism changed the wording in the law. You have yet to show anything otherwise. Mixed race marriage was in common usage from the beginning.
Prior to the same sex marriage movement, same sex unions were not commonly considered marriages. The same sex marriage movement is the one trying to change the definition.
edit note: Common usage when the bills were written still determines the definition used unless a specific definition is created. This is in order to nullify constant changes. You ignored this the first time so I restated it.
You continue to make invalid claims:
you continue to make invalid statements:
You continue to pretend you're arguing. Shall we dance?
Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry, but I'm not accusing you of favoring interracial marriage bans. I thought that would be clear from an ordinary reading of my posts, but I shall proceed otherwise from here on in. I am asking you why you do not considering they have just as much history behind them as any other regulation on marriage. If history is cause enough for you to support bans on gay marriage, then it should be enough to get you to support bans on interracial marriage. You're either consistent or you're not. Right now you're not and why is that?
The original definition of marriage commonly used (prior to passage of the anti-miscegination bills) did include same race couples but institutionalized racism changed the wording in the law. You have yet to show anything otherwise. Mixed race marriage was in common usage from the beginning.
Prior to emancipation, most slaves couldn't legally marry whatsoever. But even were mixed-race marriage common from the beginning of time, that would say nothing about whether or not it should be so. Antiquity is not argument.
Prior to the same sex marriage movement, same sex unions were not commonly considered marriages. The same sex marriage movement is the one trying to change the definition.
Yes! Of course it is! Now explain why we're wrong to do so. After all, Loving changed the definition of marriage for several states.
Just saying that it's traditional is not an argument. If you believe that historical practice is presumptively morally and legally infallible, then we need to talk about spousal rape. This right of the husband was considered inherent in the institution of marriage. The woman consented permanently and without condition to being sexually available whenever the man wanted her. For him to force himself on her was not rape. In the US, it wasn't rape until the 1970s. OMG! They CHANGED the definition of MARRIAGE!
You continue to make invalid claims:
you continue to make invalid statements:
You continue to pretend you're arguing. Shall we dance?
Again with the strawman.I'm sorry, but I'm not accusing you of favoring interracial marriage bans. I thought that would be clear from an ordinary reading of my posts, but I shall proceed otherwise from here on in. I am asking you why you do not considering they have just as much history behind them as any other regulation on marriage. If history is cause enough for you to support bans on gay marriage, then it should be enough to get you to support bans on interracial marriage. You're either consistent or you're not. Right now you're not and why is that?
The original definition of marriage commonly used (prior to passage of the anti-miscegination bills) did include same race couples but institutionalized racism changed the wording in the law. You have yet to show anything otherwise. Mixed race marriage was in common usage from the beginning.Prior to emancipation, most slaves couldn't legally marry whatsoever. But even were mixed-race marriage common from the beginning of time, that would say nothing about whether or not it should be so. Antiquity is not argument.
Prior to the same sex marriage movement, same sex unions were not commonly considered marriages. The same sex marriage movement is the one trying to change the definition.Yes! Of course it is! Now explain why we're wrong to do so. After all, Loving changed the definition of marriage for several states.
Just saying that it's traditional is not an argument. If you believe that historical practice is presumptively morally and legally infallible, then we need to talk about spousal rape. This right of the husband was considered inherent in the institution of marriage. The woman consented permanently...
Try reading what I post.
I never stated that you said I was for interracial marriage bans.
The Virginia act was in '24.
Loving overturned it in '67.
Emancipation happened a long time prior to that and marriage was defined commonly by the populace as a union between a man and a woman.
This common usage was changed by the anti-misceginists (sp?) in order to stop interracial marriage and keep the races pure. The definition was changed in order to do this.
The definitiuon of marriage changed depending upon who was involved. There was not one definition for everyone under the law. It failed constitutionality.
Loving stopped that.
Now, the definition does not change according to who is involved in the union within a state. It passes constitutionality.
There have been a great number of bills passed in order to modify the institution of marriage as it has been commonly defined. See my original post today for examples. These bills are not rights. They are laws.
The problem with attempting to change a union of two same sex people into a marriage is that the union is not the same as that between a man and a woman. See my posts above. Try atually reading them instead of asking questions I have already answered. This answers why.
No, the government is merely continuing to enforce the law based upon the definition of marriage as it was used when the laws were written.The government is essentially refusing to recognize these religiously ordained marriages, but is explicitly endorsing marriages ordained by other faiths. In other words, the government is making laws that favor one religion over another.
That might be what they are intending to do, but that is not the effect that is created. These laws were originally made by the government right? You can't claim that they're just enforcing what they were given, with no power to make law. The government made the laws, and is enforcing them. If a law has an unintended or adverse consequence, it can and should be changed, no?
Not all laws were written such that the definition of marriage is specifically restricted to being "between one man and one woman". How many laws of marriage refer to "two persons" (if/before they were recently changed to specifically disallow gay marriage)? Why the push to add an amendment to the constitution that specifically includes the "one man one woman" language if this is already the law as written everywhere?
|
|
A right is something that exists. You have the same rights in Saudi Arabia as you do here, they just choose to oppress those rights in Saudi.
Something granted is a privilege.
It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.
Now, the only true rights you have are those you, yourself, can defend. If you rely on a government to protect those rights, you are going to be disappointed more often than not.
You have the same rights in Saudi Arabia as you do here, they just choose to oppress those rights in Saudi.
You may deserve the same rights in Saudi Arabia as you do here, but you manifestly don't have them. That one ought to have something does not mean one has it.
Now, the only true rights you have are those you, yourself, can defend. If you rely on a government to protect those rights, you are going to be disappointed more often than not.
That's just anarchism. If the state doesn't grant a right and can't be stopped from infringing it, then the right doesn't exist. Rights are social contracts. Important social contracts, absolutely. But if they were actually inherent and the same everywhere they would function like gravity or magnetism. They don't.
Which is why we have courts. :)
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)It should be noted that such a referendum is gathering signatures in California, I believe. But, it is a sarcastic (similar to the post above) publicity stunt.
However, there is a significant problem with such sarcastic logic. Not allowing divorce will allow the unstoppable perpetuation of abusive relationships which have time and again led to violence up to and including murder. The sanctity of marriage is a small price to pay for the sanctity of life.Well, that is about it for now.
But that's the whole point of the publicity stunt. There is no sanctity to protect, as some groups are clamouring about. Divorce rates, spousal abuse etc. are just as high among those groups who object to same-sex marriage on "moral" and religious grounds.
The original definition of marriage...
One question: why the overwhelming importance of the "original definition" as being the only acceptable one? In all of your posts, it forms the crux of your arguments, so that's an important point. I'm guessing you're referring to a biblically-sanctioned definition: something ordained by God himself in His revealed word must therefore be the best possible version, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm not trying to tell you what you're thinking; I'm just guessing out loud here. If there's some other explanation, I'd be interested to hear it.
So, I'm guessing happy people cannot marry.
"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life / Never make a pretty woman your wife..."
But at least Calvin should be fine, then, unless he changes his attitude.
Am I understanding that the 'civil rights' argument is a straw man because
1. Being able to marry someone is not a 'right'
2. The original definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore some other union is something other than marriage by definition
I have maybe two semesters of college credit, so I am not an educated poodle. I will not even claim to be a smart or wise poodle.
It seems to me that some people are allowed to do something that others are not. You could argue that not everyone can play professional football. That is true. But that is based on ability. Here, it seems the only basis is because the Law/Bible says so.
Well, I am sorry, but that is just not good enough. I do not find that fair. Yes, that is right, I said 'fair'. I believe that is a perfectly valid argument. I believe laws are supposed to be fair. They often come up short, but that is not the point.
If your church does not want to perform a marriage, I have no problem with that. In fact, I would defend your church's right not to perform a marriage. But I believe the state and federal government should treat couple A the same as couple B regardless of the number of sexes involved.
Could someone please explain the sanctity of marriage concept to me. My understanding is that it is religious based which, for me, brings up the question of whether it is relevant to this discussion. Further, I still fail to see how couple A's marriage has anything to do with couple B's marriage.
|
|
I found this quote in a Slate article dealing with Europe and Islamic extremism. It seems that the U.S. isn't the only country that is dealing with marriage issues. While not directly related to the topic at hand, it does illustrate why marriage laws are difficult statutes to write.
No European government has successfully found a way to deal with this phenomenon. And those that have tried often find themselves running up against their own civil rights and legal traditions. The Danes, determined to limit the number of foreign spouses entering Denmark through arranged marriages, found they had no choice but to make it more difficult for all Danes to marry all foreigners.
Just to point out that the idea of marriage is between men and women is not restrict only to cultures that have been dominated by people that read the bible. I think it is a bit intellectually dishonest to suggest that christians are the only ones that have ever considered this idea.
As for the issue if the concept of same-sex marriage is an old one and why that is important, it deals with the idea of an deeply rooted right. If the concept isn't considered deeply rooted then it can not be considered an deeply rooted right. That is why it matters in legal matters.
...
In deciding the validity of legislation under the Due Process Clause, courts first inquire whether the legislation restricts the exercise of a fundamental right, one that is ‘‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’’ (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 [1997], quoting Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 [1977] [plurality op.]; Hope v. Perales, 83 N.Y.2d 563, 575, 611 N.Y.S.2d 811, 634 N.E.2d 183 [1994] ). In this case, whether the right in question is ‘‘fundamental’’ depends on how it is defined. The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right (Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 [1978]; Cooper, 49 N.Y.2d at 79, 424 N.Y.S.2d 168, 399 N.E.2d 1188). The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not ‘‘deeply rooted’’; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times. The issue then becomes whether the right to marry must be defined to include a right to same-sex marriage. ...
Marriage destroys the environement. It should be outlawed.
Just to point out that the idea of marriage is between men and women is not restrict only to cultures that have been dominated by people that read the bible.
Right: you've also got those people who read the Koran. In Arica, you've got people citing either or both the Bible and the Koran in answer to why homosexuality should be outlawed, depending on which one is prediminant in that particular area. But overall, the prohibition is religious in nature, and particularly vehement in Christianity and Islam.
I the ideal of rule by divine right was also deeply rooted at one time. I am sorry, tradition is not a good enough escuse.
Just to point out that the idea of marriage is between men and women is not restrict only to cultures that have been dominated by people that read the bible.Right: you've also got those people who read the Koran. In Arica, you've got people citing either or both the Bible and the Koran in answer to why homosexuality should be outlawed, depending on which one is prediminant in that particular area. But overall, the prohibition is religious in nature, and particularly vehement in Christianity and Islam.
India has worst prohibitions than the USA when it comes homosexuality. However, there is nothing in their religion that prohibits homosexuality. The old Soviet Union didn't have a real love for gays either, and it was as Godless as it could be. The prohibition being primarily religion-based is a myth.
India ha[d] wors[e] prohibitions than the USA when it comes homosexuality. However, there is nothing in their religion that prohibits homosexuality.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), of which Section 377 forms a part, was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial government:
377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
So we're looking at law drafted by Christian colonials -- a law which did not exist prior to their arrival, and which was recently (7/2/09) struck down in their absence.
Stalin's anti-gay laws are indeed another matter entirely, but as near as I can tell, everyone except high party officials were technically guilty of some crime or other during that time, so maybe that was just part of a laundry list to make sure no one slipped through the cracks of State control.
The prohibition being primarily religion-based is a myth.
I count tradition as an argument against it. What other, non-religious based arguments are there?
India ha[d] wors[e] prohibitions than the USA when it comes homosexuality. However, there is nothing in their religion that prohibits homosexuality.The Indian Penal Code (IPC), of which Section 377 forms a part, was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial government:
377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
So we're looking at law drafted by Christian colonials -- a law which did not exist prior to their arrival, and which was recently (7/2/09) struck down in their absence.
Stalin's anti-gay laws are indeed another matter entirely, but as near as I can tell, everyone except high party officials were technically guilty of some crime or other during that time, so maybe that was just part of a laundry list to make sure no one slipped through the cracks of State control.
Ah, you got me on that Indian one. However, the reason why Stalin's anti- gay law was there was due to human bigotry. People fear others who are different from themselves. Let's face it, people use the Bible to target gays because of their own prejudices, not because of Holy Scripture. Jesus said nothing on the subject of gays and there are only 2 to 3 references to homosexuality in the Old Testament. If it wasn't for bigotry these references would have gone the way of the shellfish prohibition.