View Full Version : SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?hp
Blog with very interesting commentary.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-iv-the-courts-options/
"The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who were married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of some $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.
Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the federal appeals court in New York struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one in May from a court in Boston. The New York decision was the first from a federal appeals court to say that laws treating same-sex couples differently must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny.
The Windsor case made its way the Supreme Court unusually quickly because the parties had filed an appeal from the trial court’s decision in the case, also striking down the law, even before the appeals court had ruled."
I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.
I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.
Indeed! May it not become our generations Plessy. We shall see.
Nice graphic:
http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-gay-marriage-chronology/
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 10:38pm
Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob
Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob
While I have no issues with same sex marriage, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the constitution.
The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.
...if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal?
Yes, I remember that bit. It's in the Declaration of Independence though. Another one of those bothersome musty old documents nobody cares for anymore....
Note also that further along in the Declaration, it says (bold is my emphasis...):
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I think there is a boringly simple constitutional argument that follows from reading the 9th and 10th Amendments (almost forgotten text these days too..). Where in the Constitution is the Federal government ceded the power to regulate marriage in any way?
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:13pm
While I have no issues with same sex marriage, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the law.
The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.I disagree, Alan. Completely.
Let me put it this way.....If you believe in the Constitution (?) that states all men are created equal, then should it not be legal for me to marry another man - and have it be the same as you yourself marrying a woman? Both should have the same set of rights and responsibilities - and the unfortunatey messy potential for divorce. To me this is all men being created equal. I can't tell you for how many years I have felt disconnected from society - as I said, just going through the motions - here is another reason - the reality for some is that not all men are created equal. Walk a mile in these shoes.....you might very well see this differently. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:15pm
Well my bad.....LOL and I have a college degree too.....I am sure you are right and this is stated in the declaration of independence.....point being if this clause is true and real, maybe it's time to be true and real for another class of people? Rob
I disagree, Alan. Completely.
You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not the recognition of our individual abilities, but our individual desires.
Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_miscegenation.svg/320px-US_miscegenation.svg.png
I see this issue as being little different.
You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not our individual abilities, but our individual desires.
That's a poor bit of sophistry, Alan, and you know it. Shame.
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:28pm
You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not the recognition of our individual abilities, but our individual desires.Alan, I am absolutely intrigued. We share the same rights to marry, you say?
OK then. Let us say we are both single, and you want to marry Lucy (a random name I picked out). I want to marry Sven (I've always liked that name). So we all live in Phoenix - or let's make it Cleveland, as you are from Ohio. The four of us - you and I and Lucy and Sven - go down to City Hall and try to get marriage licenses. You and Lucy have no problem - Sven and I don't get the license. How do we share the same rights to marry, Alan? Once again, you have me absolutely intrigued.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:32pm
Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_miscegenation.svg/320px-US_miscegenation.svg.png
I see this issue as being little different.I see it as being quite similar, in the sense that what seems to be a basic human right to the people involved is denied through the law. Rob (and yet taxes are still collected and due anyway, which has issues of taxation without representation to me but that's a whole other can of worms.)
Just wanted to add - I didn't know what sophistry meant &googled it- thanks for using this word so I could learn a new word.....Rob
That's a poor bit of sophistry, Alan, and you know it. Shame.
I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.
The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.
Or, Rob, both you and Alan decide to get married (to Sven and Lucy) here in Washington State, at my vineyard. You all fly in, get your licenses, show up, and I marry you. Life is good. Both couples are married here, legally, in the state of Washington.
Until you file your Federal income taxes, and find out that the Federal government has decided to ignore the sovereign people of the State of Washington's wishes. Or until you, Rob, die, and try to leave your estate to your husband. And find that the Federal government doesn't want the estate transfer between spouses to occur as specified by the laws of the Great State of Washington, and taxes it so your partner has to move.
Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.
I agree with you on this point, that government should not be involved in marriage at all, except as a recorder and arbiter of contracts.
We don't live in that world though.
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:39pm
I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.
The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob
Alan, I am absolutely intrigued. We share the same rights to marry, you say?
Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.
The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:42pm
Or, Rob, both you and Alan decide to get married (to Sven and Lucy) here in Washington State, at my vineyard. You all fly in, get your licenses, show up, and I marry you. Life is good. Both couples are married here, legally, in the state of Washington.
Until you file your Federal income taxes, and find out that the Federal government has decided to ignore the sovereign people of the State of Washington's wishes. Or until you, Rob, die, and try to leave your estate to your husband. And find that the Federal government doesn't want the estate transfer between spouses to occur as specified by the laws of the Great State of Washington, and taxes it so your partner has to move.
Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."These points of yours I completely agree with and understand.....If I ever meet a Sven, may it be on Capitol Hill with him having no wishes to leave Washington State! LOL. Rob
Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.
The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.
Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.
Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.
"We both have the right to marry a member of our same race, and we both share the ability not to marry".
"We both have the right to marry a member of our same religion, and we both share the ability not to marry".
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:46pm
Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.
The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.OK I think I am following you here. But what throws me off is that you say we are equal in the regard to marry a member of the opposite sex, but the problem in my case becomes the narrow definition of marriage as defined by goverments.
Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob
I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob
I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:50pm
Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.
The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.
Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.So would this be the libertarian take on marriage, a collection of contractional rights/responsibilities between consenting parties? Isn't this what marriage is in the first place? Basically? Rob
I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?
I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).
It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.
In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.
And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:54pm
I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?Ummm how about reasons of child support in the event of divorce? How about battles regarding assets upon death? How about in the case of marriage of citizens of different countries, so the two persons can live together in one country? I can think of situations in which a legal framework would make situations less messy. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-7-12, 11:57pm
I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).
It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.
In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.
And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct? I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob
So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct?
Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.
I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob
Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(
Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob
Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.
I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)
I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives?
Because not enough of us have hit the "watering the tree of Liberty" stage yet.
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-12, 12:14am
Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.
I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)I follow your beginning here but then get lost on the second paragraph. Why do we allow the government to define our lives? Fair question in my book. Because given the current system we live under, in this case discussing same sex marriage, this is the only way for the mythical Sven and I to have the same rights and responsibilities as the mythical Lucy and you have. I can see some points in what you are saying about why is the government part of this - why is the government intruding in this when two consenting adults can figure this one out on their own - why? Because until there is some kind of major societal change, this is the only way it seems that Sven and I can have what you and Lucy can easily have - those rights and responsibilities. You bring up interesting points, Alan, (and I can see you are great to debate with), but.....in society as it is right now, to have what you an Lucy can easily have, the only way seems to be getting the government into it and state by state trying to make same sex marriage legal. Fair answer? Rob PS If society were to change and another method could achieve similar results, I'd be open to it. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-8-12, 12:16am
Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.
Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(Congrats to your father and his partner BTW.....Rob
I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?
By all means, ask. In the meantime, let's move forward with marriage equality, or rescind federal recognition of all marriages, and all the financial entanglements that have emerged as a result of this recognition. BTW, historically, marriage was a property rights contract. This property included the woman & her inheritance.
Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.
I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)
Unless we remove all the legal, economic ramifications of marriage, the state has to be in there somewhere. Personally I'd like to see the whole thing tossed for a much more generic legal definition, like allowing people to form a household (like forming a corporation, a legal document defining rights and obligations) in its place. And leave marriage as a strictly religious institution.
Well, I've read that the Obama administration is planning to NOT defend DOMA before the Supremes, in hopes they kill it forever, paving the way for the feds to legally recognize the states that allow same sex marriage. Obama is just one person, and not king, as it turns out, and must protect and defend the laws no matter how onerous they may be to him. He wants this law, DOMA, to go away as much as most of the rest of us.
However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.
Sorry Alan, you're not going to twist this to somehow blame the democrats for this discrimination while supporting and defending the very ones who so very very much want to keep it and write it into the constitution!
What many don't realize is Clinton signed the DOMA in an effort to PROTECT gays, or rather to protect an individual states right to allow same sex marriage. Hawaii was having a serious talk with itself about same sex marriage and the republicans were afraid their states would have to recognize same sex couples from Hawaii if they passed a law allowing it. With a growing anti-gay force in the republican congress who were pushing to amend the constitution to add this official discrimination, Clinton felt this act was the only way to pacify these right-wing haters and signed it so they would back off and allow each state to determine for themselves within their state. Clinton actually changed his mind about this law quite a while ago, and would like to see it go away as well.
However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.
I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...
I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...
Absolutely! Never in our history, since it's beginning, have we tried to write discrimination INTO the constitution. Frankly I think they will lose. I don't think they can come up with any reasonable argument that convinces anyone why your father and step father, or my daughter and any future SO, shouldn't marry. I think in the cold light of the Supreme court, emotional rhetoric will not trump simple law/rights laid out clearly in the constitution.
At 12:01 am, 3 minutes from now, Judy Mary Yu will conduct the first legal marriage of two women in Seattle. Yay!
... and a bit of humor!
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/a-divorced-straight-mans-guide-to-gay-marriage/Content?oid=15449639
I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.
The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.
Since you think that government shouldn't be involved in marriage would it be safe to assume that you, in fact, have chosen not to get married? If you're not married, great. If so, how do you reconcile your feelings on this topic with your actions, and how do you justify denying others the same ability to take advantage of a government benefit/entitlement that you yourself took advantage of?
rodeosweetheart
12-9-12, 4:11pm
Would this affect those folks who wish to enter in plural marriage?
Since you think that government shouldn't be involved in marriage would it be safe to assume that you, in fact, have chosen not to get married? If you're not married, great. If so, how do you reconcile your feelings on this topic with your actions, and how do you justify denying others the same ability to take advantage of a government benefit/entitlement that you yourself took advantage of?I've been married for 36 years and honestly don't have anything to reconcile, nor have I made any effort to justify denying others the same ability. Do you feel that there should be no restrictions on marriage, or would it be ok if certain restrictions remain excepting whichever ones you prefer?
I think any two adults who want to should be able to get married, possibly with a very limited exception for blood relatives.
As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)
So then you are in favor of DOMA being struck down? As can be seen from the example being heard by the supreme court this year obviously gay people ARE being treated differently by our government with regards to marriage. In this particular case $360,000 different.
So then you are in favor of DOMA being struck down?
I thought I was clear on that. The government should not be in the business of enforcing social conventions, although marriage is a tricky business. Should I be able to marry my sister (if I had one), or perhaps my adult daughter? Should you be able to marry multiple spouses?
There are valid restrictions on marrying close relatives due to the risk of damage to the gene pool, although what if one or both parties were incapable of reproducing, would that make it OK?
If we take the government out of our choices, are all choices valid?
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 8:13pm
Just wanted to say I am taking quite a bit of joy at the thought of these same sex couples up in Washington State getting legally married.....I am of the opinion that I may very well be going through this life alone, but how nice it is to see others getting married. Honestly, there was a time not too long ago in which I thought I would never live to see this happen in the US.....Ditto for gays and lesbians being allowed to serve openly in the military. So there is more hope right there. Rob
http://www.flickr.com/groups/marriedinseattle/pool/
recent photos in Seattle!
If we take the government out of our choices, are all choices valid?
Yes. It's called anarchy. Somalia is a good example.
Marriage equality is here. We're witnessing the evolution of human & civil rights. It's a good thing.
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 9:36pm
Yes. It's called anarchy. Somalia is a good example.
Marriage equality is here. We're witnessing the evolution of human & civil rights. It's a good thing.I couldn't agree with you more, Redfox.....Will be interesting to see the reaction of some of the more conservative states if this becomes a nationwide thing.....Rob
Marriage equality is here. We're witnessing the evolution of human & civil rights. It's a good thing.How far will the evolution take us? Is there a point where you would say 'No more!', not from a legal sense but from a moral standpoint?
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 9:59pm
How far will the evolution take us? Is there a point where you would say 'No more!', not from a legal sense but from a moral standpoint?I'm not sure I am getting your meaning here.....But what I will say is that I personally don't find legalizing same sex marriage to be a moral issue.....Did you mean how far in general, or something more specific? Rob
How far will the evolution take us? Is there a point where you would say 'No more!', not from a legal sense but from a moral standpoint?
No one knows how far evolution will take us. My great grandparents would be completely blown away by our world today. And the "no more!" point for me is not significant. For me, having a civil process & democratically elected representatives make the civil laws we abide by, as well as having the rights of initiative & referendum, are what's important to me; the process, not an end point.
My mind has been changed on myriad issues, but not on the manner in which we as a nation establish our laws. My own personal stance on issues is mine alone, and not important to our overall social well being. My personal code of ethics and morals are often well represented in our laws, though not always. I work to engage our electeds to change those I wish to see change. I love our system, and generally applaud our societal procession of change.
I'm not sure I am getting your meaning here.....But what I will say is that I personally don't find legalizing same sex marriage to be a moral issue.....Did you mean how far in general, or something more specific? Rob
If society decides that it is so enlightened as to change the traditional concept of marriage to include same sex couples, will it continue to evolve in it's enlightenment to include multiple spouses and close relatives, all in the name of human and civil rights? And if not, why not?
If society decides that it is so enlightened as to change the traditional concept of marriage to include same sex couples, will it continue to evolve in it's enlightenment to include multiple spouses and close relatives, all in the name of human and civil rights? And if not, why not?
At what point in the timeline of human evolution do you pinpoint "traditional" marriage? It has changed countless times since its emergence as an idea, and is practised in many different ways in most societies.
At what point in the timeline of human evolution do you pinpoint "traditional" marriage? It has changed countless times since its emergence as an idea, and is practised in many different ways in most societies.Let's say over the last 200 or so years on the North American continent.
Oh what the hell, let's include South and Central America and Europe as well.
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 10:40pm
No one knows how far evolution will take us. My great grandparents would be completely blown away by our world today. And the "no more!" point for me is not significant. For me, having a civil process & democratically elected representatives make the civil laws we abide by, as well as having the rights of initiative & referendum, are what's important to me; the process, not an end point.
My mind has been changed on myriad issues, but not on the manner in which we as a nation establish our laws. My own personal stance on issues is mine alone, and not important to our overall social well being. My personal code of ethics and morals are often well represented in our laws, though not always. I work to engage our electeds to change those I wish to see change. I love our system, and generally applaud our societal procession of change.I'm thinking how right you are about how society has changed in just my lifetime. I remember my mother's second husband, who I did not get along with at all, who was extremely conservative - I think he would just have a stroke to see an African American as President of the United States, and to have gay marriage be legal in Iowa.....(he was from Iowa) - I just don't think he could have dealt with either of these things.....Or to have gay men and lesbians server openly in the military - much of the social change I applaud would just throw him completely off. Rob PS I should add he passed on of a stroke in 1989.
Let's say over the last 200 or so years on the North American continent. Oh what the hell, let's include South and Central America and Europe as well.
Wow! Well, not being a cultural anthropologist, I did some looking around (aka Ask the Google), and this article by Stephanie Coontz, a professor in WA state, sums up the changes in last 250 years in western cultures:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/14/how-straight-marriage-s-evolution-led-to-obama-s-gay-marriage-endorsement.html
Notable for me:
1. Marriage for love rather than arranged by parents.
2. Marriage of those previously banned from marriage-the "feeble minded" & interracial couples.
3. The recognition of women as human beings in marraige, ending our status as property.
4. Ditto our inheritance rights.
5. Sexual privacy & access to contraception.
6. Equality of rights within a marriage, especially ending the belief that we cannot be raped by our legal spouse.
I find gender to be irrelevant as a characteristic in people. I know many people who claim one of several gender identities, and some who claim more than one gender identity. Gender is a social construct that does not mirror genetic or genital configuration.
Thus for me, marriage is a contract between three parties: two adults and the state. I don't care what the gender identities of those adults are, any more than I care about their racial, ethnic, religious identities, their physical, economic, family or political status. If a childless Republican Pagan wants to marry a Libertarian divorced Catholic parent of 12 and live as a transgendered couple, who the heck am I to care? I care if they stop at the red light, encourage their children to be kind to others, pay their taxes, vote in our elections, and laugh at my jokes.
Thus for me, marriage is a contract between three parties: two adults and the state. I don't care what the gender identities of those adults are, any more than care about their racial, ethnic, religious identities, their physical, economic, family or political status. If a childless Republican Pagan wants to marry a Catholic parent of 12 and live as a transgendered couple, who the heck am I to care? I care if they stop at the red light, encourage their children to be kind to others, pay their taxes, vote in our elections, and laugh at my jokes.
I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.
In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 10:54pm
I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.
In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?Just really curious.....What is your objection to the state being a party in the contract, and how would you change things then so that the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be granted to those legally marrying - sexual orientation aside? I'm talking transfer of assets upon death, that kind of thing. Rob
Just really curious.....What is your objection to the state being a party in the contract, and how would you change things then so that the rights and responsibilities of marriage would be granted to those legally marrying - sexual orientation aside? I'm talking transfer of assets upon death, that kind of thing. Rob
I guess it depends on how you define 'the state'. If you're talking about the several states mentioned in our constitution, I think it's only right and proper for them to set standards for social contracts within their jurisdictions. If you're talking about the federal government, then my objection is that it should not be in their purview. By what right does it choose not to accept a legal contract originating in one of it's states?
I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.
In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?
Nicely summed up! The state has obviously had restrictions in place, and those are being changed as social mores change. My opinion: I too would prefer that the state not be party to the contract. My husband & I debated literally for years over this, as we agree, and wondered how to best solemnify our committments to each other & his children.
As in all things revolutionary, we also had the mundane to attend (jobs, etc.), and thus took the easy, socially sanctioned way, legal marriage. With our own Pagan twists, of course! (The Celebrant, my improv theatre teacher, got his license to marry us on the internet in 5 minutes, and we had our entire community pronounce us married as a collective.)
We married for fun, for joy, for recognition, for acceptance as a couple AND as a stepfamily, for ease of moving through our society, and to throw a fantabulous party. Many of the same reasons that others marry. Notably absent for us was a formal religious aspect, as we're both Pagan.
Since the legal status of 'married' exists, and many systems intertwine with this legal status, denying it to same gender couples is illogical, undemocratic, and indefensible in a civil society. And now, in some places, illegal. That is progress in a secular, civil society.
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-12, 11:10pm
I guess it depends on how you define 'the state'. If you're talking about the several states mentioned in our constitution, I think it's only right and proper for them to set standards for social contracts within their jurisdictions. If you're talking about the federal government, then my objection is that it should not be in their purview. By what right does it choose not to accept a legal contract originating in one of it's states?Along these lines, it will be interesting to see how the federal government reacts to the legalization of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado.....and what reasoning they wll use if these recently passed laws are tossed aside. Ditto should same sex marriage be made nationwide via the federal government - (which I would approve of) - but there would be some states that would not approve. I live in one of them, Arizona. What would be their reasoning and rights to preempt what the state residents deem is proper for the state? I think I see your point to some degree and I don't have easy quick answers on this one. But you are making me think......Rob
Along these lines, it will be interesting to see how the federal government reacts to the legalization of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado.....and what reasoning they wll use if these recently passed laws are tossed aside. Ditto should same sex marriage be made nationwide via the federal government - (which I would approve of) - but there would be some states that would not approve. I live in one of them, Arizona. What would be their reasoning and rights to preempt what the state residents deem is proper for the state? I think I see your point to some degree and I don't have easy quick answers on this one. But you are making me think......Rob
Our AG & local DA's wants to know too! Much speculation in WA state about the role the Feds will take, if any. The ongoing & robust national convo about the balance between states rights & the role of the Federal Government continues...
If society decides that it is so enlightened as to change the traditional concept of marriage to include same sex couples, will it continue to evolve in it's enlightenment to include multiple spouses and close relatives, all in the name of human and civil rights? And if not, why not?
Short answer. Blood related couples should be not able to get married. For the obviose reasons you point out. Should we relax those rules if kids won't be involved, perhaps.
Multi-marriages: In theory it shouldn't matter. But in reality, marriage benefits are much more than just financial. They also include child custody rights, survivor healthcare decisions, etc. Expecting the state to make decisions about such, ahead of time, is not practical and probably not desirable for people in those positions.
Short answer. Blood related couples should be not able to get married. For the obviose reasons you point out. Should we relax those rules if kids won't be involved, perhaps.
I remember reading somewhere that at least one state allows first cousins to get married if both are over 50, for obvious reasons.
I remember reading somewhere that at least one state allows first cousins to get married if both are over 50, for obvious reasons.
We also seem to allow people who are not related to get married, even if they both carry genes for some nasty genetic condition that is likely to be passed on to children.
Whereas the risk from first-cousin marriages seems to be quite small:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320
So I suspect we're in fact dealing with some sort of cultural discomfort here, rather than a science-based concern for the welfare of children.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/12/09/video-same-sex-couples-share-their-stories/
A few short vid interviews with couples, about their meeting & relationships.
Multi-marriages: In theory it shouldn't matter. But in reality, marriage benefits are much more than just financial. They also include child custody rights, survivor healthcare decisions, etc. Expecting the state to make decisions about such, ahead of time, is not practical and probably not desirable for people in those positions.
I know many people who are polyamorous, and one trio who engaged in a handfast ceremony. I do not think this is the scary "slippery slope" that those opposed to marriage equality imagine it to be. Those of us who are Queer are estimated to be around 10% of the population, though I don't know if bisexuals are included in this estimate.
Those who are poly are a lesser number of folks than those who are Queer, though of course many poly folks are heterosexually oriented, so can be in an open marriage with legal protections connected to at least one of their partners. The issue before us is same gender marriage, and nothing else. Let's take this one step at a time! If the poly community wants to advocate for marriage equality, make your case, let's talk about it. That's how it rolls in a secular, civil society.
I do not think this is the scary "slippery slope" that those opposed to marriage equality imagine it to be.
But it is so much more fun to trot out those "what about people who want to marry goats" lines to rationalize your discrimination against consenting adults engaging in uncoerced behaviour :-)
But it is so much more fun to trot out those "what about people who want to marry goats" lines to rationalize your discrimination against consenting adults engaging in uncoerced behaviour :-)
I must have missed the part about the goats and the rationalization of discrimination. Perhaps I should re-read the thread.
I get the urge to give the Liberty tree a drink when access to benefits are protected for one group, but denied to another. That is overly simplistic in practice, but it works for me. As to why we continue to allow the State to intervene in our personal affairs, it is only because we have not yet objected loudly enough and forced it to stop. By now that tree is getting pretty thirsty...
As to why we continue to allow the State to intervene in our personal affairs, it is only because we have not yet objected loudly enough and forced it to stop.
That's true. But another reason is that the vast majority of us prefer that our laws give special preference or, obversely, slight attention to groups/individuals/causes that make us feel better about ourselves. If we really approved of equal protection under the law we'd never allow hate crime legislation, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc., all staples of identity politics.
That's true. But another reason is that the vast majority of us prefer that our laws give special preference or, obversely, slight attention to groups/individuals/causes that make us feel better about ourselves. If we really approved of equal protection under the law we'd never allow hate crime legislation, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc., all staples of identity politics.
If equal protection under the law had actually happened many of those things would never had been considered in the first place.
gimmethesimplelife
12-10-12, 7:54pm
If equal protection under the law had actually happened many of those things would never had been considered in the first place.BINGO! Which is why it seems to me that the government has to get into it for better or worse.....Rob
So, you guys are in favor of treating people differently, except when you're not? :doh:
gimmethesimplelife
12-10-12, 8:39pm
So, you guys are in favor of treating people differently, except when you're not? :doh:Alan, I'm not sure if you were commenting on my post or others? My point above was that if equal protection under the law - or some kind of framework - had taken place in the first place, there would not be any real need to have the government involved in "identity politics" as you put it. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, hence my support (and expectation if I may be so bold) of the government getting involved. In a perfect world, though, this would not be needed. Rob
Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment. :|(
Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
this is the real sticking point -- state and federal levels.
I think that there are good things about entitlements around marriage -- like spousal privilege, next of kin stuff for medical/legal stuff is pretty valuable. Testate issues are helpful, but not necessary in terms of 'rights.' But since they are federal and state entitlements, might as well apply to all kinds of marriages, as per above.
gimmethesimplelife
12-10-12, 9:13pm
Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment. :|(? Sorry you lost me here Alan.....? Rob
Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment. :|(
Probably not. But leaving them just as they are is probably not the best way, either.
SteveinMN
12-10-12, 9:55pm
So, Alan, discrimination and injustice does exist. How do you propose to address those issues? If not the government, who?
Steve, I'm sorry, I just thought it was interesting that an audience so focused on a particular issue of fairness could accept and promote the opposite in so many other areas. I seem to have forgotten the time honored principle of consistent inconsistency.
freein05
12-11-12, 12:20am
Will the justices interpret the Constitution as they are suppose to or use their personal ideology as the guiding light in their decision. The Supreme Court should not have the power it does. The justices have in the past and will in the future make decisions based on their personal beliefs and not on what the Constitution says.
This court is especially ideological. You know right now that Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will vote against gay rights and write wonderful briefs explaining why their interpretation of the Constitution is the correct and the only way the Constitution should be interpreted.
This is what Scalia has to say on gay rights.
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told freshman Duncan Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both."
How in the hell can Scalia equate being gay with murder. Since the Constitution does not have the word homosexual in it, case closed prop 8 is the law of the land in California according to the way Scalia thinks. He is a real conservative wing nut.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/antonin-scalia-book-tour-legal-writings-antigay_n_2274413.html
It's really so so simple. Marriage is a powerful, transcultural civil & religious rite of passage by which loving couples and their commitment to each other, to their shared lives, to their families and to their communities are recognized and celebrated. The civil & legal exclusions of gay & lesbian couples from this life marker have been based in prejudice, and are indefensible.
We live in a civil society, and are governed by the rule of law. Marriage equality is being recognized culturally and civilly now, and in some circles, also religiously; in this time of our shared human history. Spain's high court just rejected a challenge to their version of marriage equality. Social change happens continually in the course of human history. Our society is maturing, and we are now casting light into the shadows where marginalized gay & lesbian couples have been forced to live. No more.
Though prejudice continues, the opening of this door to one of our most revered customs, that of marriage, to our gay & lesbian family, is here. Inclusion, equality, freedom, love, and happiness are being celebrated by those of us who cherish our evolution as a species and as people.
While I have no issues with same sex marriage, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the constitution.
The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.
then just give it to us if it doesn't matter to you.
it was like when the gay side won the minnesota marriage vote in november. on tv, the gay side, at their party, had people crying their eyes out. life long couples hugging and crying. the anti-gay side party had people standing around picking their noses. why do they even care.
I think where I fail to see logic is where do these laws create injustice? On whose lives do they 'trample' or cause a problem?
How does extending the privileges afforded to licensed marriages beyond heterosexual couples cause a deep injustice to everyone else? I'd just like to see a pragmatic example of how that works.
I think where I fail to see logic is where do these laws create injustice? On whose lives do they 'trample' or cause a problem?
How does extending the privileges afforded to licensed marriages beyond heterosexual couples cause a deep injustice to everyone else? I'd just like to see a pragmatic example of how that works.
Or hate crime legislation? I personally think they are redundant in many ways, but I fail to see how they trample on anyone else's rights. If someone kills 10 people in cold blood, they should fry. So, if they killed them because they were black/brown/Muslim, etc...ok, well, we'll spit in their eye before we flip the switch. No one else is being discriminated against because of it.
Affirmative action, well, I do believe it's time to start phasing that out. But that legislation has served it's purpose, a very good purpose.
Like you Zoebird, I can't figure out how marriage equality discriminates.
Like you Zoebird, I can't figure out how marriage equality discriminates.
The only way I can figure is it denies some the exclusivity of a privilege they used to have, i.e. you're taking someone's privilege and letting everyone have it. Kind of like having a city funded country club and the city decides everyone can join. How unfair. >:(
SteveinMN
12-11-12, 10:45am
Steve, I'm sorry, I just thought it was interesting that an audience so focused on a particular issue of fairness could accept and promote the opposite in so many other areas. I seem to have forgotten the time honored principle of consistent inconsistency.
You are ducking my question.
There are a handful of people posting on this board -- including you -- who have a fair amount of contempt for government. I understand that, in your perfect world, it would not be necessary to involve the government in marriage. In fact, I actually would be happy to let married couples enter into a civil union recognized by the government for the purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, etc., and let them go to the social organization of their choice for a "marriage" with whatever other covenants they want to add in. But this toothpaste is out of the tube.
So if you don't believe government is the agent to address these issues, what or who is? What mechanism exists in your ideal government-free world which would make it wrong to disallow gay marriage or to exclude black people from voting or prevents evangelical Christian landlords from denying two gay Hindus from renting an apartment? It's easy to say the government should not be involved. But the problems won't go away for wishing. So what alternative mechanism do you recommend?
I can't figure out how marriage equality discriminates.
That's because it doesn't. Inclusion is the opposite of discrimination. The sad cries of the opposition to marriage equality are those of the privileged mourning their imagined loss of status.
You are ducking my question.
There are a handful of people posting on this board -- including you -- who have a fair amount of contempt for government. I understand that, in your perfect world, it would not be necessary to involve the government in marriage. In fact, I actually would be happy to let married couples enter into a civil union recognized by the government for the purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, etc., and let them go to the social organization of their choice for a "marriage" with whatever other covenants they want to add in. But this toothpaste is out of the tube.
Well, now that you've labeled me, and a handful of unknown others, let's see how close you are. I don't have contempt for government, I have contempt for government over-reach, particularly on the federal level.
Whether I like the outcome or not, I believe the states have the right to use their government to impose the will of the people, within the limitations of their constitution. And, once the people have spoken, the federal government should keep their hands out of it provided the state isn't violating one of the tenents of the federal constitution. I believe DOMA to be over-reach by the federal government, intruding into states rights, and I believe Prop 8 to be squarely within the realm of states rights whether the federal government likes it or not.
If you (the collective you) don't want the federal government to intrude on the state's ability to allow same sex marriage (DOMA), or the legalization of marijuana, or any other local decision, then you shouldn't be asking them to arbitrate those decisions you don't like, such as proposition 8.
JaneV2.0
12-11-12, 12:35pm
I suppose it is un-PC to point out we have a supreme court packed with religionists, specifically Catholic ones*. I'd like to think that doesn't matter, that the justices will interpret the Constitution objectively, but I doubt it.
Also, Scalia might want to contemplate the morality of murder as it relates to war. He can consult the Vatican for guidance. Or is that a case of "situational ethics?"
*Full disclosure: I'm sure I'm still on the rolls of the Church somewhere.
I suppose it is un-PC to point out we have a supreme court packed with religionists, specifically Catholic ones*. I'd like to think that doesn't matter, that the justices will interpret the Constitution objectively, but I doubt it.
Can we safely assume then that you don't think the concept of morality should come into play in governmental decisions?
Also, Scalia might want to contemplate the morality of murder as it relates to war.
Oh, maybe not..
Can we safely assume then that you don't think the concept of morality should come into play in governmental decisions? Oh, maybe not..
Whose morality?
Whose morality?
Doesn't matter, for the purpose of discussion anyone's will do.
Whose morality?
I can't think of a concept that is more subject to interpretation, unless it is codified by some external agency. Like a religion.
Doesn't matter, for the purpose of discussion anyone's will do.
Because morality is a subjective belief system, it matters a great deal to me. Throughout our western history, the relationship between morality & law has been debated. I tend towards the Platonic view:
"Morality involves interaction with others and therefore the organization of society and the nature of government are also central issues." - http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/republic.htm (This article is an interesting read.)
I believe that the role our judiciary is one of reason and principle above subjective morality and personal values. As humans, it is quite the challenge to rise to objectivity, as our brains are configured to subjectivity. Recognizing one's subjectivity, one's values, principles, and morals allows one to cognitively see these frames of reference, and to shift out of them when considering objective questions of law.
A personal example: my stepson was buying and using cannabis when he lived with us, and was under the age of 18. Neither his father nor I have any moral or values based objections to the purchase and use of cannabis, and we both use it. However, we enforced the rule in our household that he was not to possess or use cannabis while in our custody and under the age of 18. My husband seized his pipe & stash, and returned it to him after he had moved out and was over 18.
We were very clear to our son that our principled stance was two-fold: it was illegal for our stepson to be in possession, and it was medically unsound for him to expose his developing brain to cannabis. Once he was of the age to be legally responsible for himself AND out of our home, he was free to make his own choices. Following the law was of paramount concern to me, the daughter of an attorney, and a firm believer in the rule of law. I wanted my stepson to see and experience the importance of the rule of law, despite my moral and values based disagreement with the illegality of cannabis possession & use.
We discussed when one might violate the law, in the context of personal morals & values, as my husband & I do when we possess and use cannabis. We also talked at length about the civil processes for changing the law, as well as the civilly disobedient ways of challenging laws one finds personally objectioable.
Do I want morality to play a role in my governmetn's processes? Optimally, I prefer informed objectivity and reason. The weave is subtle, and I prefer those who govern to be clear on their principles, clear on their own moral and values based stances, and willing to suspend those beliefs to consider a larger, objective and reasoned approach.
Whose morality?
That's really what it comes down to. Morality is not required to be logical, reasonable, or even feasible.
Whose morality?
I think society's morality will do. There is morality, as religions dictate, and there is the accepted morality of a society. I am not religious, at all. Don't believe in it. But I am a moral person. Religion does not own morality, nor did they invent it. When we gathered together in organized societies, each society had to 'hammer out' what was acceptable morality for that society. Today, even, the world isn't in total agreement as to what is moral. Some societies are fairly loose by our standards, and others quite strict. Although I think most of who we would consider civilized societies find murder immoral, some are more lax in this than others. Morality is simply what we think is right and what is wrong. (this is of course different than laws. It isn't immoral to run a red light, but it is against the law)
This society, right now, is largely saying gay marriage is OK. Therefore, gay marriage is moral and perfectly acceptable. This society, right now, also says discrimination against gays, blacks, women, etc...is not moral and is wrong, therefore it is.
People evolve, societies evolve. It wasn't that long ago when showing your ankle was wrong, and women who did were thought to be immoral. We think it's funny now, but it was a very serious reality that labeled these women, possibly ruining their reputations.
When people decry societies changing morals, this is the kind of thing they are talking about. It was the same mindset that didn't want women to vote/allowed to own property, or blacks to be freed/treated equal, or let women have control over their own reproductive lives, etc...We learn, we evolve, we move forward. There will always be those who try to cling to the 'way it was' with both hands, screaming about 'taking America back' and other such nonsense.
This is an evolving, moral nation. I think, rather than losing our morals, we are fine tuning them and becoming more aware. And those who would brag about their morals, are largely becoming the ones who are immoral by this society's thinking.
The reason the federal government needs to be involved is because we don't allow states to vote on discrimination. If we allowed each state to decide what was discrimination, the south would still be segregated. And I'm sure there would be more than one state that didn't allow women to vote, or mixed race couples to marry.
This society, right now, is largely saying gay marriage is OK. Therefore, gay marriage is moral and perfectly acceptable.
Just for the sake of discussion, the people of California (lets call them a regional society) voted not to allow same sex marriage, so, if we consider their vote to be an expression of their morals, does that make their decision moral and perfectly acceptable? Or, do they perhaps need a panel of 9 people to validate/invalidate their decision for them?
I agree with those who don't think civil rights should be subject to a vote; this seems to be a civil rights issue.
I don't see a morality issue here, unless it's the morality of imposing your religious strictures, prejudices, misperceptions, or sexual mores on others.
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-12, 4:27pm
I don't see a morality issue here, unless it's the morality of imposing your religious strictures, prejudices, misperceptions, or sexual mores on others.
that's kind of what marriage is in general though ...
Just for the sake of discussion, the people of California (lets call them a regional society) voted not to allow same sex marriage, so, if we consider their vote to be an expression of their morals, does that make their decision moral and perfectly acceptable?
I believe you should derive morals from reason, and not by voting or cultural "feelings".
The foundation of my ethical system is that I believe that it is in general wrong to initiate the use of force against another person. Peter Singer's works explore the implications of this, and the reasoning behind it.
So, in general, a society voting to not provide equal consideration to some of its members, based purely on their sexual preference, skin color, religion, or which side of their eggs they crack open would not meet my standard of "moral". Or acceptable.
SteveinMN
12-11-12, 4:33pm
Well, now that you've labeled me, and a handful of unknown others, let's see how close you are. I don't have contempt for government, I have contempt for government over-reach, particularly on the federal level.
Whether I like the outcome or not, I believe the states have the right to use their government to impose the will of the people, within the limitations of their constitution. And, once the people have spoken, the federal government should keep their hands out of it provided the state isn't violating one of the tenents of the federal constitution. I believe DOMA to be over-reach by the federal government, intruding into states rights, and I believe Prop 8 to be squarely within the realm of states rights whether the federal government likes it or not.
If you (the collective you) don't want the federal government to intrude on the state's ability to allow same sex marriage (DOMA), or the legalization of marijuana, or any other local decision, then you shouldn't be asking them to arbitrate those decisions you don't like, such as proposition 8.
Thank you, Alan. I honestly am not trying to poke at nests with a stick. I am trying to understand the viewpoints of people who don't seem to like the government being involved in much of anything, which makes me wonder what those folks think government should do, since I don't see promotion of outright anarchy. <-- I also am aware that the previous sentence is a bit of an oversimplification -- too wide a brush, if you will, but it will do for purposes of discussion. This all probably ought to be a separate thread anyway.
After reviewing this entire thread, though, the only thing I've come away with is that you don't believe the federal governments should be involved in marriage at all and that any rights expressed through vote/legislation by the citizens of a state should be the only ones enforced as part of a social (in this case, marriage) contract (am I correct here?).
The confusing part I still see is how conflicting states rights are handled. Washington state legalizes gay marriage. Rob and Sven marry in Washington. A job change takes them to a state where gay marriage is not recognized. Are they no longer married? Do they no longer have the rights afforded them by their marriage in Washington? Do they turn down the job because that state does not recognize their commitment?
And where does the states' rights argument leave situations like Brown v. Board of Education and other SCOTUS suits that overturned Jim Crow legislation? Was the federal government overreaching there? Again, not poking. I honestly want to see how you view and reconcile these situations.
We had a little discussion about this Constitutional point in the 1800s. Led to this:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. "
I believe you should derive morals from reason, and not by voting or cultural "feelings".
The foundation of my ethical system is that I believe that it is in general wrong to initiate the use of force against another person. Peter Singer's works explore the implications of this, and the reasoning behind it.
So, in general, a society voting to not provide equal consideration to some of its members, based purely on their sexual preference, skin color, religion, or which side of their eggs they crack open would not meet my standard of "moral". Or acceptable.
Agreed. We do have a tripartite system of governance, and the balance between the three is always in negotiation; always in a far-from-equilibrium state, if you will. It is within this dynamism that our experiment in democracy is being conducted. Damn, I love these conversations!
If we really approved of equal protection under the law we'd never allow hate crime legislation, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc., all staples of identity politics.
I kind of lost this line in the shuffle, but it is very provocative. As I started to type a response everything coming out sounded just like typical party talking points. That may be the clearest indicator of all that (much) more thought is required. Thank you Alan!!!
Damn, I love these conversations!
Took the words right out of my mouth redfox!
The confusing part I still see is how conflicting states rights are handled. Washington state legalizes gay marriage. Rob and Sven marry in Washington. A job change takes them to a state where gay marriage is not recognized. Are they no longer married? Do they no longer have the rights afforded them by their marriage in Washington? Do they turn down the job because that state does not recognize their commitment?
That particular quandary is nothing new. Some states recognize common law marriages and some states don't. How is that dealt with? Some states allow females to marry as early as 14 with her parent's consent, others require her to reach the age of 16 or 17 before parental consent may be granted. Is a 15 year old, legally married in Alabama still married if she moves to Indiana?
gimmethesimplelife
12-11-12, 9:41pm
That particular quandary is nothing new. Some states recognize common law marriages and some states don't. How is that dealt with? Some states allow females to marry as early as 14 with her parent's consent, others require her to reach the age of 16 or 17 before parental consent may be granted. Is a 15 year old, legally married in Alabama still married if she moves to Indiana?Would you feel any different about goverment involvement if these laws were uniform throughout the 50 states? Just curious.....Rob
iris lily
12-11-12, 9:46pm
Well, now that you've labeled me, and a handful of unknown others, let's see how close you are. I don't have contempt for government, I have contempt for government over-reach, particularly on the federal level...
That's a good way to put it, and yes, that's largely my distain for the feds, their overreach. And then to add insult to injury, their inability to run things well. Oh sure they can run things, but it is always expensive, complex, and sometimes sub-par.
Would you feel any different about goverment involvement if these laws were uniform throughout the 50 states? Just curious.....Rob
Would I feel differently about 14 year old girls getting married? No, I'd still disapprove.
On the broader point, about laws being uniform throughout the 50 states, how do you accomplish that? Do you nullify state legislatures and exert federal control throughout the states?
gimmethesimplelife
12-11-12, 9:58pm
Would I feel differently about 14 year old girls getting married? No, I'd still disapprove.
On the broader point, about laws being uniform throughout the 50 states, how do you accomplish that? Do you nullify state legislatures and exert federal control throughout the states?Is this why you are against government involvement in things in general - the fact that it can lead to complications and complexity? (if you want to talk about the tax code, I'll have to agree with too complex and too many complications there).....Rob
Is this why you are against government involvement in things in general - the fact that it can lead to complications and complexity? (if you want to talk about the tax code, I'll have to agree with too complex and too many complications there).....Rob
No, you mis-understand my belief's. I am not against "government involvement in things in general". There is a proper place for the various levels of government, especially local and state governments, but I do believe the federal government has gotten too ambitious in its desire to involve itself into things it was not intended to do.
I also fear what appears to be an accelerated rush into a pure democracy where a tiny majority can use its influence to oppress the minority, especially now that the federal government has grown large enough and invasive enough to enforce, and even facilitate, that oppression.
SteveinMN
12-11-12, 10:45pm
So Brown v. Board of Ed and the Rosa Parks decision and the SCOTUS upholding intervening in the Terry Schiavo case -- is that federal overreach or ... ??
It is true that this is not a new idea.
Part of the reason why the Supreme Court hears on these issues is because of this conflict. If it turns out that it is a US issue, not just a state issue, then they will hear the case and make a decision of some sort. If it turns out to not be a US issue, but simply just a state issue, it is sent back to the states' supreme (or superior) court.
For example, it's perfectly fine for Prop 8 to be argued against the CA constitution. But, it conflicts with DOMA and there are those who say that Prop 8 completely messes with the whole interstate thing. Other states want to decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal, not have CA make the law (though VT did it first), and then everyone else must abide because of the US citizenry issue. That's how these things came about.
And so, now it's perfectly right for the supreme court to decide whether or not -- or how -- this functions at a federal level.
I think, too, I read a case about marriage age (14 yr olds, legal consent, etc). Turns out the state can decide when, but once the marriage is valid, it's valid across states, even if the kid couldn't have granted consent in another state. It's shocking how young some states allow marriage (12 or 13, I think?). So, if a 20 yr old marries a 13 yr old -- all consents granted and license granted -- then the other states recognize it. Well, so long as it's heterosexual at this point anyway.
It's an interesting thing, really. And the same issue/argument did come to pass around race issues as well. I haven't looked for the case law, I'm just passing through while taking breaks from immigration paperwork.
freein05
12-11-12, 10:57pm
SteveinMN good point. My brother lives in Louisiana and the people living there still say we did not need the Feds to force us to integrate our schools. We would have done it eventually. Sure! My brother is from Southern California were schools were never segregated. We went to schools in the Venice area which when we were growing up was a lower middle class area. He hates Louisiana but his wife is from there so they retired there.
My understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Federal constitution's due process clause, results in every state honoring every other state's marriage laws, even if not legal in that state. So, for instance, if it's legal for a 14 year old to get married in one state that marriage is accepted as a legal marriage in every other state. The prime supreme court case that decided this was Loving v. Virginia, which determined that the Loving's marriage, which happened in DC (and was legal there) was legal in Virginia, despite Virginia's anti-miscegination law. The supreme's decision invalidated a wide variety of anti-miscegination laws around the country and at this point it's commonly accepted that if one is legally married in one state that marriage will be accepted elsewhere, even if it couldn't have happened in the other state.
DOMA was created out of fear that Hawaii was about to legalize gay marriage and many other states at that time were horrified at the thought of having to recognize gay marriages. if it gets overturned it'll likely be a short amount of time (at least in supreme court timeframes...) before it's decided by the supremes that a gay marriage in one state has to be honored by every other state.
The only questions at this point are whether the current supremes will honor the constitution or their personal religious morals, and, if they do strike down DOMA at some point, whether they honor their court's precedents regarding the due process clause as it relates to marriage and the various state laws.
Without discounting anyone's religious or moral imperatives, I always thought the real force behind opposition to same sex marriage (including DOMA) was based on monetary issues.
JaneV2.0
12-12-12, 11:26am
That's a good way to put it, and yes, that's largely my distain for the feds, their overreach. And then to add insult to injury, their inability to run things well. Oh sure they can run things, but it is always expensive, complex, and sometimes sub-par.
From Dollars and Sense.org:
The United States' Social Security system is the most efficiently run insurance program in the world, with overhead of only 0.7% of annual benefits; for every $100 paid into the system, $99.30 is paid out in benefits to retirees.
From Health Affairs.org:
Medicare Has Lower Administrative Costs Than Private Plans.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans’ marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare’s overhead is dramatically lower.
Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.
Medicare would be an even better bargain if it could negotiate drug prices like the VA can.
I'm all for streamlining and consolidating government programs--judiciously--but I don't agree that all federal programs are wasteful or poorly run.
.
I'm all for streamlining and consolidating government programs--judiciously--but I don't agree that all federal programs are wasteful or poorly run.
They're not. That's just one of those things people say automatically, and everyone nods in agreement cause, well, everyone says it!
ApatheticNoMore
12-12-12, 2:22pm
Some are poorly run but that is often against some standard of optimal efficiency that orginizations in the real world don't seem to bear much resemblence to at all (and that's assuming it's just poorly run-ness not corruption you are dealing with). There's poorly run state programs, heaven knows there are poorly run corporations (most corporations probably) etc.. Granted I think it's hard to run a real small business and be too inefficient and not go belly up, but corporations seldom face that kind of pressure.
Here's an example of poorly run: many people who lost power after Sandy still do not have power back. That is a private utility (my ideal model for utilities is city run, because it seems to work well). And yet FEMA is not stepping in, despite that people are without power for months, their electrical wiring shot, mold growing on their houses, and cold! Occupy Sandy has done more for many of those affected by the storm that FEMA. Inefficiency? All around .... and more than enough to go around.
SteveinMN
12-12-12, 4:31pm
From Dollars and Sense.org:
The United States' Social Security system is the most efficiently run insurance program in the world, with overhead of only 0.7% of annual benefits; for every $100 paid into the system, $99.30 is paid out in benefits to retirees.
From Health Affairs.org:
Medicare Has Lower Administrative Costs Than Private Plans.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans’ marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare’s overhead is dramatically lower.
Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.
Medicare would be an even better bargain if it could negotiate drug prices like the VA can.
I'm all for streamlining and consolidating government programs--judiciously--but I don't agree that all federal programs are wasteful or poorly run.
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a person who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.” -- Karl Popper (paraphrased)
In my experience, people who are virulently anti-government take a philosophical stance on it. Some of them don't even know that they participate (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www) (even voluntarily) in government programs. And I've yet to see a single person who has turned down government assistance; nor do I see much support for limiting government programs to only those who need them. Maybe they're out there, but I sure haven't met any in half a century on this planet. It's almost like government benefits transmogrify from "wasteful spending" to "my due" when they go to the right people. We just saw what happened when Mr. Corporate America tried to run for President. If government is so screwed up, why didn't he win?
We just saw what happened when Mr. Corporate America tried to run for President. If government is so screwed up, why didn't he win?
Because America has turned a corner.
Because America has turned a corner.
I sure hope so! Change is, of course, the way of life.
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a person who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.” -- Karl Popper (paraphrased)
... We just saw what happened when Mr. Corporate America tried to run for President. If government is so screwed up, why didn't he win?
If there's an historical precedent for a corporate raider/robber baron winning the presidency, I'm not aware of it. Certainly it was way before my time.
I sure hope so! Change is, of course, the way of life.
But which direction did we turn?
1074
gimmethesimplelife
12-12-12, 7:49pm
But which direction did we turn?
1074I see both positive and negative. Given that I am a Scorpio and linger too long in the negative, I'm going to start with the good. For once. Though there will be those who disagree with me I see ObamaCare as a big positive step - ditto for the Supreme Court taking up gay marriage and getting these issues out into the open, out on the table, getting them spoken about in everyday America. Whatever the decision is, there is no going back on the fact that these issues are/were out on the table instead of in the closet. That alone is progress I did not think I would see in my lifetime. I see gays and lesbians serving openly in the military - again, never did I believe I would see that in my lifetime. I see a minority as President of the United States, something that still moves and impresses me, even though at the moment I am less than pleased with him.
The negative - I see spending upon spending upon spending and no real efforts from either party to change this - though I will say the Republicans seem willing to bring it up, gotta give them credit for that. Conservatives here please don't be shocked, I have said this much before. I also think there will be a lot of pain when a day or reckoning for all this spending happens.....Rob
One must remember that Social Security and Medicare are programs the Republicans have been trying to eliminate since their inception. Why are the Republicans trying to make changes to these programs now? I will answer the question because they think they have enough leverage with the fiscal cliff and having to increase the deficit. They want to hold a gun to the head of these programs.
Lets look at the facts SS will not have problems for another 20 years. Medicare is the most pressing but it is still 7 years away from problems. There is a lot of time to work out a fix for these important programs. To fix them in a few days is crazy. The Republicans want to increase the eligibility age for Medicare to 57. I guess they forgot why Medicare was created. Insurance companies would not cover seniors and that remains true today. Neither of these programs caused the Great Recession. Wall Street and speculators caused it not Social Security or Medicare.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.