Best commentry on gay marriage I've seen yet

[RendeR]

http://www.desertdispatch.com/cgi-bi...8237616,96134,


COMMENTARY: Public opinion shouldn't affect our rights

By SCOTT SHACKFORD

If Americans got to vote on whether or not you could actually marry your girlfriend or boyfriend, do you think you'd pass muster?

Imagine standing before a minister at your own wedding and hearing him say, "America has been following your whole courtship and has seen all the petty arguments and insults that happen behind closed doors. We've seen dishes thrown.

We've seen you sleeping on the couch occasionally. Given the high divorce rate in this country, voters have decided that the likelihood of your relationship lasting is too low to support. I'm sorry -- you may not get married at this time."

Fortunately, no heterosexual couple needs to deal with such an outrageous situation. Most people are allowed to get married whether the general public supports their relationship or not.

That's why I find it mystifying that people I've never met think they should have a say in whether or not I can marry.

Polls fill media reports about gay marriages, ascribing percentages to how Americans feel. The numbers vary, but the results are generally consistent -- a majority of Americans don't want gay people to get married.

But my question is this: Why should the opinions of a majority have any bearing on my rights as a human being to marry the one that I love?

Public opinion doesn't have such an impact on other rights. If a man expresses an unpopular opinion, the government wouldn't attempt to deprive him of his freedom of speech. If a woman were to practice an unpopular religion, lawyers wouldn't go to a judge to seek an injunction against her.

But somehow Americans have decided that they can stick their noses in everybody else's relationships and make laws based on their own beliefs of what constitutes love.

I won't sit idly by for others to decide the fate of my relationships.

Marriage is a right. I find it inconceivable that people would argue otherwise. There are fewer restrictions on marriage than on some of the rights set forth in Constitutional amendments. It's easier to get married than to buy a gun. A person in prison can't vote -- but he or she may get married.

Invoking God and "sanctity" to claim marriage is a privilege, not a right, simply doesn't wash, and not just because it's a violation of gay Americans' religious freedoms. Couples don't have to believe in God at all to have a marriage recognized, as long as the two participants qualify.

If we're getting God involved, we might as well argue that breathing is a privilege not a right, if we extend the argument logically that God is the originator of all life.

The thing about rights is that people get them regardless of whether or not the public agrees. In fact, that's the whole point. We have a "right" to speak out, to sue, to worship, to vote, and to marry, among other things.

In order for a right to be restricted, it must present a threat to the rights of others. The argument that gay marriages somehow present a danger to the "institution" is a lackluster attempt at curtailing civil rights. The idea that one group of people could threaten the success of relationships entered by a totally different group of people is an insult to the intelligence of every person in America.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's acts of civil disobedience are hardly a threat to the rule of law. They are a reminder of what our laws are supposed to protect. They remind us that the law should have a very good reason before it denies us our rights -- and "majority rule" isn't always good enough.

There is no harm originating from Newsom's edict to allow gay marriages to take place in his city. In fact, the tears of joy on the faces of the newlyweds and the celebrations show that his actions are bringing about an end to unjustifiable harm forced upon millions of Americans.

Last Friday, hundreds of couples waiting in line at San Francisco City Hall were surprised by deliveries of bouquets of flowers, paid for by anonymous supporters from across the country. For the couple who received a bouquet with a card reading "Congratulations on your commitment, from Scott in Barstow," I wish long life and great happiness.

Someday, when I'm ready to take that step, it will be me in that line. And I won't be taking no for an answer.

[wig]

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

[Draft Dodger]

I thought we already agreed that I had the best arguement

[CamEdwards]

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

[heybrad]

I think we should pass a law that says that while gays are still allowed to celebrate their birthdays, straights get to have more cake.

Joke stolen from Bill Maher, who I normally cant stand, but I liked this one

[Masked]

Interesting point that I heard in an interview with the SF mayor yesterday. Back in the 60's when about 15 states had laws against interracial marriage, polls indicated that an even larger majority (compared to polls today on the gay marriage issue) favored keeping those laws.

Because the majority favored keeping laws against interracial marriage, were the states right not to sanction those marriages?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Nope. The majority does not, and should not, always rule. If that were the case, we might still have slavery in the South. There's no doubt that we'd have different water fountains...

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Like slavery was supported by a majority in say, South Carolina in 1861?

Like denying women the right to vote was favored by the majority in the US prior to 1920?

Like the majority favored denying the few courageous black students who wanted to attend state universities and white high schools in the South in the 1950's and 60's?

For that matter, if the majority should always have their way, exactly why is there a Bush in the White House right now?

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

As governmental functions go, securing and defending the rights of the minority is even more important than enforcing the will of the majority. See above for some good examples.

[panerd]

Not that I entirely feel this way, but couldn't the author had written that piece about why he wants to marry a 10-year old girl? What if her parents approved and he loved her? While I most certainly do not believe that gays are pedophiles, it is basically the same arguement. I personally feel there should be more restrictions on marriage, not less. (Actually add more restrictions on having children as well)

EDIT: I have never read any of the other gay threads, so be light on the attacks if someone else already got flamed to hell for this.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Like slavery was supported by a majority in say, South Carolina in 1861?

Like denying women the right to vote was favored by the majority in the US prior to 1920?

Like the majority favored denying the few courageous black students who wanted to attend state universities and white high schools in the South in the 1950's and 60's?

For that matter, if the majority should always have their way, exactly why is there a Bush in the White House right now?

Interesting that constitutional amendments were required for all of those instances you note above. Constitutional amendments which require passage in 3/4 (not 2/3, sorry Quik) of all states.

The majority of the electoral college votes went to President Bush in 2000, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

Protection for minorities is great. I'm all for it. I'm also for letting the people, not the judiciary, have the final say. As noted above, it wasn't judicial fiat that allowed women the right to vote, allowed blacks the right to exist as free men and women, allowed black men and women to enter colleges and universities. Yes, Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation unconstitutional, but it was President Kennedy who called for, and Congress who passed, legislation which ensured equal rights for those of both colors.

I've proposed here before, and I propose it again, a constitutional amendment calling for marriage to be defined as "two people of either gender, unrelated by blood or marriage". I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm just really tired of the comparisons to the civil rights movement. Please tell me what these couples are risking by getting married? A parking ticket for letting the meter expire? I see the mayor of New Paltz, NY was charged with solemnizing marriages without a license, which is good... but this is not the stuff of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Clara Luper, and others. You want equal rights? You've got 'em. You and I can both marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither one of us can marry someone of the same sex. Now, if you want to redefine the concept of marriage as sanctioned and sponsored by the state, you're more than welcome do it. Just don't be surprised if a majority of Americans feel like marriage is a concept they don't feel like changing.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not that I entirely feel this way, but couldn't the author had written that piece about why he wants to marry a 10-year old girl? What if her parents approved and he loved her? While I most certainly do not believe that gays are pedophiles, it is basically the same arguement. I personally feel there should be more restrictions on marriage, not less. (Actually add more restrictions on having children as well)

EDIT: I have never read any of the other gay threads, so be light on the attacks if someone else already got flamed to hell for this.

I highly encourage you to look at the other threads where this whole topic has been beaten into a greasy stain that used to be a dead horse.

However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument. To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is ludicrous. A large number of people are at least ambivalent toward the rights of gays and lesbians. I sincerely doubt you could find much of anybody whose going to say that pedophiles deserve anything less than jail terms.

As for your suggestions about putting more restrictions on marriage or children...who is to be the judge of who will or won't be a good parent or husband/wife? Churches? Mosques? Synagogues? Politicians? Here's a solution the religious right ought to love. Let's let radical Islamists decide who can and can't marry. That will maintain the sanctity of marriage as a religious ceremony, which is what some conservatives are insisting on.

The whole gay marriage debate is being used by Bush in this present context to divert attention the fact that as a commander-in-chief he's a war-mongerer, and as a manager of the economy, he's watched nearly 3,000,000 jobs evaporate on his watch while running up record deficits.

To make matters worse, he's now planning on trying to amend the most sacred document in our country's history for political purposes to shore up his conservative base. I think that Americans, regardless of where they stand on the debate, ought to be up in arms over one of the most cynical moves foisted on the American people during an election.

[Fritz]

can we just let this issue rest for a week or two unless something revolutionary pops up one way or the other?

[CamEdwards]

Wuss,

to be fair, I don't think panerd was trying to use the "slippery slope" argument. I think he was honestly saying that you could replace the word gay with child lover and have the same argument. It's not quite the same thing. Close, maybe... but not exact.

Just out of curiousity, why does the opinion of the majority suddenly matter when it's a matter of ambivelence towards gays versus disapproval of pedophiliacs? It either matters or it doesn't.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

The whole gay marriage debate is being used by Bush in this present context to divert attention the fact that as a commander-in-chief he's a war-mongerer, and as a manager of the economy, he's watched nearly 3,000,000 jobs evaporate on his watch while running up record deficits.

To make matters worse, he's now planning on trying to amend the most sacred document in our country's history for political purposes to shore up his conservative base. I think that Americans, regardless of where they stand on the debate, ought to be up in arms over one of the most cynical moves foisted on the American people during an election.

Dola,

Just to clear up a few things: it wasn't Bush that issued the Mass. Supreme Court decision. It wasn't Bush who started marrying folks in San Francisco. It wasn't Bush who made this an issue. He's issued exactly one statement on the matter, and mentioned it for about twelve seconds in his SotU address.

Secondly, President Bush can't amend the constitution. You know that, right?

[CamEdwards]

double dola:

you're right Fritz... although the mayor of New Paltz was charged today... is that revolutionary enough?

[Subby]

We should wait. After Bush loses the election this whole thing will die down anyway...

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Interesting that constitutional amendments were required for all of those instances you note above. Constitutional amendments which require passage in 3/4 (not 2/3, sorry Quik) of all states.

The majority of the electoral college votes went to President Bush in 2000, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

Protection for minorities is great. I'm all for it. I'm also for letting the people, not the judiciary, have the final say. As noted above, it wasn't judicial fiat that allowed women the right to vote, allowed blacks the right to exist as free men and women, allowed black men and women to enter colleges and universities. Yes, Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation unconstitutional, but it was President Kennedy who called for, and Congress who passed, legislation which ensured equal rights for those of both colors.

I've proposed here before, and I propose it again, a constitutional amendment calling for marriage to be defined as "two people of either gender, unrelated by blood or marriage". I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm just really tired of the comparisons to the civil rights movement. Please tell me what these couples are risking by getting married? A parking ticket for letting the meter expire? I see the mayor of New Paltz, NY was charged with solemnizing marriages without a license, which is good... but this is not the stuff of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Clara Luper, and others. You want equal rights? You've got 'em. You and I can both marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither one of us can marry someone of the same sex. Now, if you want to redefine the concept of marriage as sanctioned and sponsored by the state, you're more than welcome do it. Just don't be surprised if a majority of Americans feel like marriage is a concept they don't feel like changing.

First, if Congress were to propose a Constitutional Amendment stating something akin to what you suggest, I'd be calling my congressmen and senators to praise them.


Re. the civil rights comparison, it's not what they are "risking" Cam, it's what they are being denied.

Women could have easily just retreated to the kitchen and never fought for the right to vote, and they wouldn't have been "risking" anything.

Blacks and other minorities could have just accepted seperate but unequal conditions for education, job opportunities, etc, and not "risked" anything.

Gays and lesbians could just as easily stay in the closet, or for that matter, come out of the closet, and be unable to offer health benefits to their long term same sex partner, be unable to visit them when hospitalized since they aren't legally related, have to fight for custody for their partner's child at a disadvantage, and not have the legal protections that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

And I would suggest to you that they are "risking" quite a bit. If a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passes (and the one currently being looked at in Congress makes no attempt at guaranteeing civil unions in any way shape or form) it would be a great deal harder for them to reopen the issue in the future. It would also be the first time the Constitution has "ever" been amended to deny rights to a group or class of people in this country.

I'd also like to see the constitutional amendment that led to the end of Plessy vs. Ferguson. That was actually ended by a number of court decisions followed by Federal legislation, not a Constitutional Amendment.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument.

It's a slippery slope, but I'm not sure it's a false one, and I'm fairly sure that we didn't reach that consensus in the (many, many) other threads. Sometimes slippery slopes can be valid, although I think you and I would agree that there are probably better examples to use in this case. Polygamy comes to mind.

P.S. I like the line about the greasy stain/dead horse. Do you mind if I steal that and pass it off as my own?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola,

Just to clear up a few things: it wasn't Bush that issued the Mass. Supreme Court decision. It wasn't Bush who started marrying folks in San Francisco. It wasn't Bush who made this an issue. He's issued exactly one statement on the matter, and mentioned it for about twelve seconds in his SotU address.

Secondly, President Bush can't amend the constitution. You know that, right?

Agreed on all points in your first paragraph. And honestly, we don't know how this is all going to play out. Those marriage licenses in San Francisco could very well be annulled. DOMA seems to limit Massachusetts licenses from being honored in other states. Ultimately, that's going to be tested in the Supreme Court, as it should where it will ultimately be upheld or overturned.

Re. Bush. Trust me, it's only the second of many times we're going to hear about it between now and November. If not from him, from his pit bulls in the Christian Coalition et al.

As for your not very clever swipe at my knowledge of the Constitution and the Amendment process, I just got off the tuna boat from Cuba last week. Tell me more about this Constitution you speak of.

The fact that he can't pass it on his own doesn't mean he can't try to make a hypothetical Constitutional amendment a campaign issue.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

I highly encourage you to look at the other threads where this whole topic has been beaten into a greasy stain that used to be a dead horse.

You seem to be very enthusiastic about leading the beating this evening.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It's a slippery slope, but I'm not sure it's a false one, and I'm fairly sure that we didn't reach that consensus in the (many, many) other threads. Sometimes slippery slopes can be valid, although I think you and I would agree that there are probably better examples to use in this case. Polygamy comes to mind.

Hmm. Polygamy and child molestation are at lot closer bedfellows than you seem to realize. Don't believe me? Do a Google search using "Polygamy", and "Colorado City, Arizona" sometime. You'd be surprised. I'll stand by my original statement.

P.S. I like the line about the greasy stain/dead horse. Do you mind if I steal that and pass it off as my own?

Go ahead. It's not mine either.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

That's the mistake a lot of people make. This is the kind of argument you might expect in a democracy, but this is not a democracy -- we are a republic. And the structure of our republic and the foresight of our founding fathers has allowed us to avoid too many tyranny of the majority or minority moments.

We don't need a constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage -- we already have one. The 14th amendment has already spoken, and it did it in a profound and eloquent way. How amazing that in 1868 our electe officials were prescient enough to grant all of us equal protection under the constitution.

I also don't think you can deflect criticism of Bush by using the "He didn't start the fire" argument. Bush lieutenants both publicly and annonymously have been quoted in a number of sources as saying that this is going to be a great wedge issue the president will use this fall. And the two times he mentioned it, he spoke firmly and in a high profile fashion. The president can't do anything much more high profile than mention something in the SoTU and demand Congress pass a constitutional amendment. That speaks volumes to where he is on the issue. It's not like he said this is a state's rights issue and that's it. He has given this as a high a profile as the president can without him and Cheney going on a Truman-esque whistlestop tour to stop gay marriages like some sot of heterosexual homophobic Batman and Robin crusade.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Fritz

You seem to be very enthusiastic about leading the beating this evening.

I will never fail to stand up and speak about what I believe in, no matter what you, or anybody else may think of it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's the mistake a lot of people make. This is the kind of argument you might expect in a democracy, but this is not a democracy -- we are a republic. And the structure of our republic and the foresight of our founding fathers has allowed us to avoid too many tyranny of the majority or minority moments.

We don't need a constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage -- we already have one. The 14th amendment has already spoken, and it did it in a profound and eloquent way. How amazing that in 1868 our electe officials were prescient enough to grant all of us equal protection under the constitution.

I also don't think you can deflect criticism of Bush by using the "He didn't start the fire" argument. Bush lieutenants both publicly and annonymously have been quoted in a number of sources as saying that this is going to be a great wedge issue the president will use this fall. And the two times he mentioned it, he spoke firmly and in a high profile fashion. The president can't do anything much more high profile than mention something in the SoTU and demand Congress pass a constitutional amendment. That speaks volumes to where he is on the issue. It's not like he said this is a state's rights issue and that's it. He has given this as a high a profile as the president can without him and Cheney going on a Truman-esque whistlestop tour to stop gay marriages like some sot of heterosexual homophobic Batman and Robin crusade.

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Ah, yes. That clears things up. Of course the judiciary should have the power to decide this issue, rather than the representatives we have chosen as citizens.

14th amendment (at least its relevant portions pertaining to this argument): 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.

Please tell me how someone is being denied a right guaranteed to others in federal law, since the DoMa states: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

In reading this, I'm trying to see how my lesbian neighbor is denied any right that I have. We both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither of us have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. I go back to my statement that this isn't about granting equal rights to anybody, but rather redefining the concept of a legal union called marriage, as defined by the state and by the federal government to incorporate new eligibility for that union. Once it has been redefined for one group of people, based solely on sexual preference, on what grounds would you oppose (or would you oppose) further redefinition based on other groups demanding that same right based on their sexual preference?

The 14th amendment argument you present is one, not of "equal rights for all" (which we currently have, in my opinion), but in terms of legality of marriages which may be recognized by one state and not another.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

I will never fail to stand up and speak about what I believe in, no matter what you, or anybody else may think of it.

dola: I guess that's one thing we have in common.

[wig]

FOFC is exactly like the real life gay marriage debate.

You keep pounding on it and pounding on it and pounding on it until I'm so sick of hearing about it that I just don't give a shit anymore.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

In reading this, I'm trying to see how my lesbian neighbor is denied any right that I have. We both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither of us have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have that marriage recognized by the federal government.

She is being denied the right to marry the person she is in love with. You are not.

[CamEdwards]

I fail to see love mentioned in either the 14th amendment or the DoMa. Could you point it out to me?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Wuss,

to be fair, I don't think panerd was trying to use the "slippery slope" argument. I think he was honestly saying that you could replace the word gay with child lover and have the same argument. It's not quite the same thing. Close, maybe... but not exact.

Just out of curiousity, why does the opinion of the majority suddenly matter when it's a matter of ambivelence towards gays versus disapproval of pedophiliacs? It either matters or it doesn't.

Since when is this an either/or argument?

If you are seriously equating homosexuality with child molestation, I'm afraid I've lost all respect for you as anybody with something credible to say on this issue (something I actually have a fair amount of, even though we disagree). Is this really what you are trying to say?

I don't know that the majority matters here so much as the minority. A decent sized minority (5+%) of people consider themselves gay/lesbian/bisexual). A much larger percentage of people know somebody who fits in that category as friends, coworkers, or family.

I'm not sure you're going to find more than a handful of people who are going to have any sort of empathy for pedophiles or child molestors and most of them are in jail.

Finally, as both the victim of a pedophile at one time, and as somebody who has a couple of friends who came out of the closet in recent years, the attempt by certain segments of the right to turn this into a slippery slope argument is the most pathetic, childish, and stupid thing I've ever heard anybody say.

[clintl]

Hahaha.

The DoMa's sole purpose is to deny rights, not to affirm them, and hopefully, we'll soon see the day when the Supreme Court flushes that piece of legislative sewage down history's toilet, where it belongs.

As far as marriage is concerned, I don't think that it would be much of an intellectual stretch to presume that it is one of those unnamed rights covered under the 9th Amendment, and thus also covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

[CamEdwards]

so, in other words, you're wrong, Clintl? Can't find love anywhere, right?

Wuss, I'm not trying to make a comparison at all. There is none to be made. I'm just curious because your statement was that legalizing pedophelia would never happen because a majority of people despise it. I agree. But why do peoples feelings matter on that issue and not on others? It's not a slippery slope, it's not a comparison, it's just a question. We're talking about legal issues. Feelings either matter or they don't, and from a legal perspective, if you're going to bring feelings into one issue, you're going to be hard pressed to not allow feelings to matter in another.

[clintl]

We are not talking about the right to love. We are talking about the right to marry. However, I will go so far as to say that I think the right to love is covered under the 9th Amendment as well, and I would be extremely amused to hear a public figure make the argument that we do not have the right to love.

[CamEdwards]

dola: don't see love mentioned in the 9th amendment as well.

You don't really want this to hinge on whether or not people should be allowed to marry anyone they love, do you Clintl?

[CamEdwards]

no, we're talking (or you are anyway) about the right to marry someone we love and have that marriage recognized and legalized by the government. Is that a fundamental and constitutional right? Nope, sorry.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

so, in other words, you're wrong, Clintl? Can't find love anywhere, right?

Wuss, I'm not trying to make a comparison at all. There is none to be made. I'm just curious because your statement was that legalizing pedophelia would never happen because a majority of people despise it. I agree. But why do peoples feelings matter on that issue and not on others? It's not a slippery slope, it's not a comparison, it's just a question. We're talking about legal issues. Feelings either matter or they don't, and from a legal perspective, if you're going to bring feelings into one issue, you're going to be hard pressed to not allow feelings to matter in another.

I'll take up Clint's argument a little bit more.

Forget love and step back a minute. Imagine not being able to visit your wife when she's in hospital because you aren't a legally sanctioned partner, and can't become one without paying a lawyer a ton of money. Imagine having to leap through extra hoops to arrange your estate, to provide for your wife to have custody of your children if something happens to you. Imagine not being able to provide health benefits for your wife if she is no longer able to work (and not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid). There are a lot more examples of this, but to tell me that a pair of women in a committed, serious, long-term monogamous relationship should be denied these rights while a bimbo like Elizabeth Taylor, who has married and divorced just about everybody over 40 in the state of California, certainly seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

There...it seems to me that I've argued this on a firmer legal ground than love. Ya happy?

As for why feelings matter in one case vs. the other. I'm not sure they do. Forget feelings and think societal norms. It is a far more commonly accepted societal norm that adults should not be able to sexually prey on kids than it is for same-sex couples to be denied at least some rights of heterosexual couples.

EDIT: Killed my knee jerk emotional reaction to your last paragraph in favor of something a bit more reasonable.

[clintl]

Amendment Nine

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It seems to me that what it is saying is that we have rights beyond those specifically mentioned. Again, I say that it is logical that marriage and love are among them. As far as whether people should be able to marry anyone they love - you better have a good reason to deny it. There are strong biological reasons to deny close relatives from marrying. Children are not intellectually and emotionally ready to form the level of consent required. Too often, polygamy doesn't involve consent at all.

However, I see no reason to deny equal marriage rights to any two adults who love each other and aren't close relatives.

[CamEdwards]

Wuss,

this is why I hate arguing with liberals. Must I quote you?

"However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument. To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is ludicrous. A large number of people are at least ambivalent toward the rights of gays and lesbians. I sincerely doubt you could find much of anybody whose going to say that pedophiles deserve anything less than jail terms."

This was yourargument, not mine. You're arguing a legitimacy for public opinion in one instance and against in another. My question is not to imply that one leads to another, or that one is equal to another. I'm simply asking: why does public opinion matter for one, and not for another?

As to your other argument, Rosie O'Donnell can get married to 14 different guys in California just like Elizabeth Taylor. And Elizabeth Taylor still can't marry a woman. That's equal protection under the law. You might not like it, but everyone has the same right.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by wig

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

Interesting statement. The people making the biggest noise about it are the opposition, not the supporters.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by clintl

It seems to me that what it is saying is that we have rights beyond those specifically mentioned. Again, I say that it is logical that marriage and love are among them. As far as whether people should be able to marry anyone they love - you better have a good reason to deny it. There are strong biological reasons to deny close relatives from marrying. Children are not intellectually and emotionally ready to form the level of consent required. Too often, polygamy doesn't involve consent at all.

However, I see no reason to deny equal marriage rights to any two adults who love each other and aren't close relatives.

Two arguments. First, the long one:

So what would be the argument (legally speaking) against two brothers who wanted to get married? I've already pointed out in one of the previous threads that we don't bar people who have an almost 100% chance of producing children who are deaf, blind, or otherwise born with genetic birth defects the ability to marry. Not sure the biological argument holds up, especially when you add the same sex component to it.

As to children marrying... you should look at enlightened Europe. Germany, England, and other countries are looking at lowering the voting age (in fact, there's support in Germany for allowing infants to vote). If children are intellectually capable of deciding who should best represent them politically, are they not capable of deciding who they love? Hell, just look at the stability it would provide if all of our 13 year olds who've been told it's okay to have sex could get married when they get pregnant.

You say "too often polygamy doesn't involve consent". You have some stats to back that up? I think too often the cases of polygamy without consent that we hear about are court cases in Utah. There've been about three or four of them. There are an estimated 30,000 polygamist families in that state. You only hear about the trouble cases.

Second argument, the short one:

Why are you able to decide what's a good reason to deny people in love the right to marry, but I'm not? Or should neither one of us get to decide and let the courts decide for us?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Is this an argument for mob rule?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Wuss,

this is why I hate arguing with liberals. Must I quote you?

Like conservatives can't draw conclusions based on false logic.

This was yourargument, not mine. You're arguing a legitimacy for public opinion in one instance and against in another. My question is not to imply that one leads to another, or that one is equal to another. I'm simply asking: why does public opinion matter for one, and not for another?

My argument is that it matters for both. But remember, public opinion 50 years ago supported Separate But Equal for African Americans. Public opinion can change, and those changes can be led by the judicial and legislative branches, rather than merely react to them. That's leadership.

As to your other argument, Rosie O'Donnell can get married to 14 different guys in California just like Elizabeth Taylor. And Elizabeth Taylor still can't marry a woman. That's equal protection under the law. You might not like it, but everyone has the same right.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see whether the US Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with you. In any case your conclusion isn't nearly as clear cut legally as you seem to think.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Masked

Because the majority favored keeping laws against interracial marriage, were the states right not to sanction those marriages?

Yes, of course. Anything the "majority of people" want must always be what is right for everyone.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Is this an argument for mob rule?

If you replace mob with "citizens, as opposed to judges", I suppose it could be taken that way.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not that I entirely feel this way, but couldn't the author had written that piece about why he wants to marry a 10-year old girl? What if her parents approved and he loved her? While I most certainly do not believe that gays are pedophiles, it is basically the same arguement. I personally feel there should be more restrictions on marriage, not less. (Actually add more restrictions on having children as well)

EDIT: I have never read any of the other gay threads, so be light on the attacks if someone else already got flamed to hell for this.

I'm not aware of any city, county, state, or other government in the entire USA that allows marriages with 10 year olds today. So, what new restrictions are you actually proposing?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you replace mob with "citizens, as opposed to judges", I suppose it could be taken that way.

And this is the most scary line of reasoning I've seen you take in this debate so far. Our government exists as much to protect the few against the tyranny of the many as it does the other way around.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

no, we're talking (or you are anyway) about the right to marry someone we love and have that marriage recognized and legalized by the government. Is that a fundamental and constitutional right? Nope, sorry.

Not allowing two people who are legally recognized as adults, of sound mind and body, who are otherwise trusted to conduct themselves properly in all other aspects of their lives, to marry is rather discriminatory, isn't it?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Like conservatives can't draw conclusions based on false logic.




My argument is that it matters for both. But remember, public opinion 50 years ago supported Separate But Equal for African Americans. Public opinion can change, and those changes can be led by the judicial and legislative branches, rather than merely react to them. That's leadership.



The Massachusetts Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see whether the US Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with you. In any case your conclusion isn't nearly as clear cut as you seem to think.

Mass. also hadn't passed DoMa, which California had. US Gov't has also passed DoMA. Methinks the argument about DoMa will be more related to whether or not states have the right to not recognize other marriages, rather than "equal protection" clause arguments.

If public opinion matters to both, then what is the magic number? 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. 98% of Americans oppose marriage to children (and I'd say after covering the court system for 18 months as a reporter... that number's actually high. There are a lot of sickos out there). At what point do we start paying attention to public opinion? And if public opinion does matter... why are you so opposed to the legislative, rather than the judicial branch handling this?

Sorry, I've got to get some sleep. I'll check back in after 9 a.m. CST tomorrow (don't want to be accused of dodging any arguments like last time).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

And this is the most scary line of reasoning I've seen you take in this debate so far. Our government exists as much to protect the few against the tyranny of the many as it does the other way around.

It would not take much of a government to enforce the will of the majority. It takes a strong government to protect the minorities from the majority.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

And this is the most scary line of reasoning I've seen you take in this debate so far. Our government exists as much to protect the few against the tyranny of the many as it does the other way around.

"as much"... not "more so".