• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Prop 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
A separation of gay civil unions and heterosexual marriages doesn't violate religious freedoms or erode the Constitution for the reason you claimed (to be fair to the anti-gays, it DOES only contradict the 14th amendment), it just places emphasis on the fact that there is a huge divide in this country. It basically legalizes the sentiment that homosexuals are not normal people and they should not be entitled to the same legal institutions as heterosexuals are, even if the only difference is name. If the only difference is name, why even bother doing that? That would clearly only serve to set up even more barriers and promote even more intolerance....

Despite that exaggeration on t&b's part, I agree that a separate but equal policy on marriage would be an embarassment to this country's message of democracy/freedom/equality/fairness that we seem to be preaching.

Oh, and @TheBM: Mormons are all about christian values, apparently. Just look at what they're doing to the Boy Scouts >_<
 
How is it "separate but equal" if one is NOT recognized by the government and is strictly a religious formality, and one is THE ONLY way to get any type of government benefits currently associated with marriage, and is open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples?

Something that is not a government institution cannot violate the constitution because the constitution is set up to regulate the government. If the government were not involved in marriage, which is what both AR and myself seem to be proposing and arguing for, it cannot violate a document designed to place restrictions on the government.
 
Syberia, I think that their point regarding "Separate but Equal" had to do with the fact that many people are arguing that Gays still have Civil Unions, which are the same thing as marriage, but without using the word itself.

Even if we ignore how silly the implications of this argument are (semantics justifying the restriction of civil rights?), Civil Unions do not grant all the same rights as marriage. The almost laughable kicker here is that the phrase "Separate but Equal" is pretty much as hotword for racism in this country if you know your history (see Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education). "Separate but Equal" was ruled discriminatory by the supreme court over fifty years ago. So I agree with Jrrrrrrr in that it is a huge embarrassment to this country and to our previous Civil Rights advances that "It's OK because they have civil unions and straight people have marriage" is a widely used and accepted argument.

The ignorance involved is astounding.
 
tea_and_blues said:
That's not what anyone is saying, is it? Religious people would do what they have always done - get a marriage (e.g. the legal marriage license) and dump whatever religious beliefs they want into a 'marriage ceremony'. The religious component is only in addition to marriage, it is not marriage itself.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I thought I had read that somewhere in this thread. It must've been on another forum if I am wrong.
 
The "right to marry" is not in the Bill of Rights now, is it?
Click to expand...
The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender is somewhere in the Constitution. If a government makes a distinction between one kind of legal contract and another on the basis of gender (not sexuality, gay people can get married, just not to someone of the same sex), then it is being discriminatory. And if the people want the government to be discriminatory, it is the government's responsibility to step in and say 'no'.

I agree with the rest of your post in that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution and am just pointing this out for anyone who wants to claim that marriage is not a right.
 
TAY said:
Syberia, I think that their point regarding "Separate but Equal" had to do with the fact that many people are arguing that Gays still have Civil Unions, which are the same thing as marriage, but without using the word itself.

Even if we ignore how silly the implications of this argument are (semantics justifying the restriction of civil rights?), Civil Unions do not grant all the same rights as marriage. The almost laughable kicker here is that the phrase "Separate but Equal" is pretty much as hotword for racism in this country if you know your history (see Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education). "Separate but Equal" was ruled discriminatory by the supreme court over fifty years ago. So I agree with Jrrrrrrr in that it is a huge embarrassment to this country and to our previous Civil Rights advances that "It's OK because they have civil unions and straight people have marriage" is a widely used and accepted argument.

The ignorance involved is astounding.
Click to expand...

Establish that Homosexual Unions are equal to heterosexual ones first. In order to do so, please explain why: procreation, life expectancy, health risks, social norms and mores, natural order, and overall benefit to society must all be thrown out of the equality equation.

If you cannot, you have a case of Separate and Unequal.

Hell, I think Civil Unions are a joke in principle too [just call it what it is: Contract Law], but since our society likes to play pretend with morality, I'd be willing to concede it if that were just the extent of it.

Homosexuals are the ones that want the laws to change. It is they who must make the compelling case to change the law, not us to defend it. As of yet, Gay marriage has only won among the votes from 4 out of 7 justices on a court.
 
Deck Knight said:
Establish that Homosexual Unions are equal to heterosexual ones first.
Click to expand...

Two heterosexuals involved in a relationship are both people. Two homosexuals involved in a relationship are both people. Sounds pretty equal to me.

If you can find a difference that doesnt boil down to "it's two men or two women instead of one man + one woman", I would love to hear it...otherwise you should probably just stop repeating the same gender discriminatory "logic" over and over.



what the hell, i'll give this a shot

Procreation: Because heterosexual couples that either can not procreate or choose not to procreate are also granted the same benefits.

Life Expectancy: Because being gay does not lower your life expectancy and marriage is a health benefit.

Health Risks: Because being gay is not a health risk and marriage is a health benefit.

Social norms and mores: "society hates gay people" is not a valid argument when trying to justify banning gay marriage.

Natural Order: Whose natural order? Homosexuality is as natural as it gets for me, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Is "natural order" defined by any legal document that would have precedence in a situation like this? Otherwise, this is also not a relevant point.

"Overall benefit to society": Helping to end legal discrimination, as well as making a fairly large minority (1 in 10 is pretty significant) finally feel like they belong in this country would be a pretty big benefit to society. Also, homosexual couples can adopt children and since they would be paying less taxes, their money will trickle down to the poorer people and help society out in that way too! I am assuming you are a believer in trickle down economics considering your standpoint here, so this idea should be very appealing to you.
 
procreation
Heterosexual couples do not have to procreate.

life expectancy
Heterosexual couples are allowed to marry regardless of any condition that might lower their life expectancy.

health risks
Heterosexual couples are allowed to marry regardless of any activity that they do which is a health risk.

social norms and mores
If this mentality prevailed, interracial marriage would still not be allowed.

natural order
Ah, yes, natural order. We should close hospitals and let natural selection do what it's meant to do: weed out the weak. We should outlaw electricity because it's unnatural for humans to be active during the night. And what the fuck is up with feeding babies cow milk?

overall benefit to society
I don't see what society loses by allowing gay unions.
 
Homosexuals are the ones that want the laws to change. It is they who must make the compelling case to change the law, not us to defend it.
Click to expand...

"Gays want to marry" is the only necessary argument pro. Other then that there's only contra arguments that get debunked over and over again.
 
By the way, I don't know if anyone here has said that marriage isn't a fundamental right of man, but...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination."

- C.J. Earl Warren, for the Majority, Loving v. Virginia.
 
TAY said:
Syberia, I think that their point regarding "Separate but Equal" had to do with the fact that many people are arguing that Gays still have Civil Unions, which are the same thing as marriage, but without using the word itself.

Even if we ignore how silly the implications of this argument are (semantics justifying the restriction of civil rights?), Civil Unions do not grant all the same rights as marriage. The almost laughable kicker here is that the phrase "Separate but Equal" is pretty much as hotword for racism in this country if you know your history (see Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education). "Separate but Equal" was ruled discriminatory by the supreme court over fifty years ago. So I agree with Jrrrrrrr in that it is a huge embarrassment to this country and to our previous Civil Rights advances that "It's OK because they have civil unions and straight people have marriage" is a widely used and accepted argument.

The ignorance involved is astounding.
Click to expand...

But it's NOT "Seperate but Equal". Marriage would not exist under the law. Heterosexuals and homosexuals would have equal access to the same right - civil unions. The word marriage would be an informal title, assigned by the people involved, not a formal one.
 
But it's NOT "Seperate but Equal". Marriage would not exist under the law. Heterosexuals and homosexuals would have equal access to the same right - civil unions. The word marriage would be an informal title, assigned by the people involved, not a formal one.
Click to expand...
However, the current, widely-accepted word is marriage? Why change it to appease a few theocrats? Why be so Orwellian, and why allow Theocrats to redefine the word marriage so that it is, quite suddenly, a Christian tradition? It is currently widely used to describe a secular tradition.

You're being impractical with this proposal. Marriage is, as it stands, the popular, secular civil union. People - gay and straight alike - will use the word to describe that union. It's the word everyone knows and loves. Why do imagine we should force the law to stop using it, rather than opening up the law to homosexuals?
 
As a Californian I am personally relieved that it passed in such a liberal state. The thing I find ironic about this whole concept is that the law has to be changed in either instance. To allow it there has to be a law change, but to ban it there has to be a law change. Why is there all the trouble about this? They have human rights. Marriage is not a right defined in the Constitution. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. Why are they claiming it to be a fundamental human right?
 
The entire point, Janenmori, it that the law does not need to change from its current form to allow gay marriages. The legislature just needs to enforce it. However, it does need to change to ban them.

The legislature ruled to allow gay marriages recently, not because it "wanted" to change the law, but because the law and the US Constitution already grant gay people marriage rights equal to those of any other couple. They just are not currently allowed to use those rights.
 
Ah, but it does imply them. You cannot jump up and down and shout just because the Constitution is not specifically naming all the rights that it bestows. There are many, many such rights.
 
Implication is not actuality. I could imply that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but am I saying that they are actually there?
 
The Supreme Court has found that marriage is an inherent civil right of man. You cannot argue that, legally, it is not.
 
What kind of marriage? It is such an ambiguous word these days. Civil union, religious, etc. I think they should have the same CIVIL rights to a CIVIL union. Nothing beyond that.
 
You don't seem to actually understand that rights implied by the Constitution are, in fact, rights bestowed by the Constitution, do you? That is why Constitution interpretation is so important, and why the Bush Government has been so damned embarrassing.

Article Four of the Constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
​
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

​
Which means, in short, that state-by-state bans on gay marriages are unconstitutional. They imply that full faith and credit will not be given to out-of-state gay marriages. Basically, if you want to stop gay people marrying legally, you need a federal constitutional amendment like the one that Bush was proposing.

What ruins that idea for you is Amendment 9 of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, non-enumerated rights, like gay couples' right to marry as freely as non-gay couples, are protected by the Constitution. Basically, what you'll have to do, to implement your fascist programme, is argue that gay couples do not count among 'the people' of the USA. Best wishes, otherwise I expect the law and secular justice will win the day.

Although I was wrong earlier, when I said California's law didn't need to change. I see there was already a gay marriage ban in place there. That is not usually the case, but I should not have assumed. Sorry about that.
 
How can you claim that banning homosexual marriage is discriminatory?

Whether marriage is a fundamental right or not doesn't affect this issue one bit. This is changing the definition of marriage, not who can marry. Whether homosexual marriages are legal or not legal it is still marriage that anyone can utilize.

It isn't banning certain people to marry, it bans a variation of marriage from being implemented.

Therefore, it isn't that straight people can marry and gay people can't, it's that both can marry but only opposite genders. One will choose to use the law and one won't, but it isn't unconstitutional.

Both sides need to accept that this law isn't discriminatory and stop arguing about taking away or giving rights to homosexuals. It's about a law that would specifically cater to homosexuals.
 
Thank you for that Darth Meanie. You make a valid point. Why is the homosexual community complaining that they do not have the same rights? They are allowed to marry people of the opposite gender just as everyone else is.
 
What kind of marriage? It is such an ambiguous word these days. Civil union, religious, etc. I think they should have the same CIVIL rights to a CIVIL union. Nothing beyond that.
Click to expand...
Marriage IS the current civil union in the USA. You're just trying to create a two-tiered system of marriage that discriminates on the basis of gender, and solely because of your religious beliefs, judging from your quotes. America was once the Land of the Free, in some sense, but those freedoms and that secularism is swiftly eroding. Please don't encourage the rot.
 
Janenmori:
Why is the homosexual community complaining that they do not have the same rights? They are allowed to marry people of the opposite gender just as everyone else is.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that people should only be allowed to marry the opposite gender, even if they do not fall in love with the opposite gender? Sounds pretty impractical. Why do you insist on this "shouldness"? Explain that "shouldness" to us please.

Darth Meanie:
Both sides need to accept that this law isn't discriminatory and stop arguing about taking away or giving rights to homosexuals. It's about a law that would specifically cater to homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Yep. It caters to one group of citizens' desire to marry as freely as any other group of citizens, according to whom they love regardless of gender. Good, hard-working, moral queers of all different backgrounds and political beliefs can get on with their lives and with raising their families without this ridiculous prohibition. Unless, of course, you know of a good reason why these individuals and their families should go without the same benefits of a civilly recognised marriage as any other individuals and families.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top