View Full Version : SCOTUS & Prop 8
Interesting blog analysis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-proposition-8-oral-argument/
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf
Audio:
https://soundcloud.com/afer-3/oral-argument-at-the-supreme
I found the standing arguments particularly compelling.
Arguments re: DOMA are tomorrow.
I find Justice Kennedy's contention that it isn't time yet to make a determination to be rather off-kilter: He's correct, perhaps, that we don't know the long-term impact but that cuts both ways: The harm to same-sex couples and their families are actually well-understood; the only question Justice Kennedy is raising is whether there are balancing harms on the other side. We've had same-sex marriage here for years, and there isn't even an inkling of such a thing. When comparing harm-we-know against the baseless specter of harm-we-don't-know, the latter should never prevail.
Being generous toward its proponents, Prop 8 puts in place an obviously opportunistic barrier to where the next generation, of left to their own devices, would overwhelmingly go. If lack of knowledge is the crux of the matter for the court, then, at the very least, the court should hold that such things should not be embedded in state constitutions while Justice Kennedy's "question" remains unanswered. That would scuttle Prop 8 and other states' efforts to enshrine anti-gay bias into state constitutions, while allowing it to prevail in legislatures, leaving the matter as an issue covered only by statute, and therefore changeable via statute.
Especially given that CA itself no longer stands behind Prop 8!!
To me the SC shouldn't even be discussing this as a "marriage issue" or a "gay issue", they should focus on what it is - an unconsitutional denial of rights to a certain group of people. If Prop. 8 had been about re-enacting "different" rights for Blacks, and even if a majority of Calif voted for it, that would have been seen as unconsitutional and been shot down by the SC asap without any long winded disscussions about social issues. Equal rights is equal rights. Simple.
The (leftie) website Watchdog Causes has a nifty graphic showing picketers protesting interracial marriage in 1957 juxtaposed with anti-gay marriage protests: http://www.watchdogcauses.com/
To me the SC shouldn't even be discussing this as a "marriage issue" or a "gay issue", they should focus on what it is - an unconsitutional denial of rights to a certain group of people. If Prop. 8 had been about re-enacting "different" rights for Blacks, and even if a majority of Calif voted for it, that would have been seen as unconsitutional and been shot down by the SC asap without any long winded disscussions about social issues. Equal rights is equal rights. Simple.
I've always been interested in the concept of rights, as interpreted by law. Don't homosexuals already enjoy the same "rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy, the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, given that the person is not a close relative or already married? In a case such as this, I'm wondering what makes marriage to a specific person a right, and also, should there be any form of restrictions on exactly who can marry whom.
If everybody enjoys the same "right" to marry and, as you say, "Equal rights is equal rights", are anyone's rights being violated?
Exactly, Alan. Blacks used to have the same marriage rights as whites, they could marry someone of their own race and be happy...
Come now.
Thanks for the input bae, but that didn't answer my question.
For the record, I think that cultural norms should dictate who has the ability to marry who. If the culture is tolerant of same sex marriage, who is the government to intervene and on who's behalf? My question has to do with "rights".
Don't homosexuals already enjoy the same "rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy,
No. They don't have the same rights IMHO with regards to "who" (as 2 consenting, single, non-related adults) they want to marry. At least not rights that are legal in every state, and recognized as a legal in every state and by the feds - and the legal benefits and obligations at all levels that heterosexual marriage has. It is different and not equal. And I personally consider that a violation of their consitutational rights plain and simple. Of course YMMV :-)!
ApatheticNoMore
3-27-13, 2:36pm
Of course it is true that *some* of the difficulty same sex couples face is just the same stuff single people deal with all the time. Single people get no tax advantages, no spousal discounts on health insurance, etc.. But they can just marry? That's beyond bizarre, noone just up and finds someone to marry so they can get tax advantages or cheaper health insurance.
Marriage is a construct invented and modified by a given society. Some societies support polygamy, polyandry, marriage between close-order relatives*, etc. There's a clear movement in this country toward marriage equality for same-sex couples, which is legal in other countries (and 20% of the states) already.
*I have to laugh at those who cite the Bible in attempting to justify the status quo, considering all the marriage permutations therein.
No. They don't have the same rights IMHO with regards to "who" (as 2 consenting, single, non-related adults) they want to marry.If you think it is a right, are the qualifiers you mentioned a violation of those rights?
I've always been interested in the concept of rights, as interpreted by law. Don't homosexuals already enjoy the same "rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy, the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, given that the person is not a close relative or already married? In a case such as this, I'm wondering what makes marriage to a specific person a right, and also, should there be any form of restrictions on exactly who can marry whom.
If everybody enjoys the same "right" to marry and, as you say, "Equal rights is equal rights", are anyone's rights being violated?
This position has always puzzled me. Since marriage is generally understood to be & practised as a legal, social, emotional, & often religious relationship between two people who love each other (and the third party of the state), saying that equal rights is met by being able to marry someone one would never choose is either sadly ignorant or incredibly disrespectful.
Not unlike saying one has the "right" to practice one's faith as long as it is the official religion of the state. Something we luckily do not have to contend within this country.
This position has always confused me. Since marriage is generally understood to be & practised as a legal, social, emotional, & often religious relationship between two people who love each other, saying that equal rights is met by being able to marry someone one would never choose is either sadly ignorant or incredibly disrespectful.
Perhaps a narrow viewpoint would give a person no recourse but to see others as ignorant or disrespectful, but it doesn't advance a discussion or contribute to civilized debate.
If I may expand upon my perceived in-civility, please allow me to ask a simple question. Should you have a right to marry anyone you want, without any of the restrictions society generally recognizes as proper?
Is that a loaded question? I believe that society should allow two consenting ADULTS to marry regardless. I however do not believe in child marriage, force, or polygamy.
Perhaps if it was much more equal with women having multiple husbands as well as men having multiple wives instead of the current view of old men trying to have as many young women as possible.
It's not a loaded question, at least not from my perspective. It's simply a question of the concept of "rights", as generally expressed by those who feel that theirs are being violated. Although I must admit to being curious about the seeming paradox of people approving of some restrictions, such as you and others have mentioned but feeling other restrictions are a civil rights violation.
Rights are conferred by the society you live in. You can't take anything for granted.
Rights are conferred by the society you live in. You can't take anything for granted.In my mind, that's the confusing thing about rights, as I understand a right to be something that society can't simply grant or take away.
In most cases, I think people confuse rights with benefit or acceptance, and think they can achieve it through legislation.
I think the idea of "inherent rights" is kind of ingenuous. History illustrates that targeted populations can lose legal rights overnight--"inherent" or not.
"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
I think the definition of the word 'rights' is differing amongst us. The above is a small excerpt from a larger entry, itself a summation of many works talking about the concept of rights. This has been a lengthy inquiry over the course of western civilization & jurisprudence!
In our country, legal rights specifically confer benefits provided at many levels of the government, such as legal protections & economic benefits. Natural Rights are named as inalienable in our Declaration of Independence. Many of these have also been codified as legal rights.
The legal quests for Marriage Equality is for that of conferred rights and the concomitant benefits, as well as legal protections for same sex couples equal to those of opposite sex couples. Pretty straightforward (pun intended).
Additionally, as Mrs. Edith Windsor said today, the status of marriage is "magical". That status is clearly socially conferred, and the word 'marriage' has shared power & meaning in three domains: legal, religious, and social, all of which are on a continuum, not as unconnected categories. This, I think, can be confusing.
Intentionally insulting this significant civil rights movement, which is what the Marriage Equality movement is, with the comment that "gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender and therefore have equal rights " is unprincipled and unworthy.
Alan, what other benefits do you believe the state/Feds have a rational reason for denying those who identify as gay? Housing? Jobs? Insurance? Licenses? Education? Property ownership? Or is it just marriage?
Alan, what other benefits do you believe the state has a rational reason for denying those who identify as gay? Housing? Jobs? Insurance? Licenses? Or is it just marriage?
Ahh, so that's where the disconnect is. You confuse my questioning about rights with a desire to deny anyone anything based upon their sexual orientation, even though I've never expressed that sentiment.
Being ignorant and disrespectful, apparently by nature, I honestly thought I was making another point.
Please re-read my commentary. I believe you replied while I was adding to it. Your reply makes no sense.
Please re-read my commentary. I believe you replied while I was adding to it.
Apparently so, since I quoted your entire original post and now, 20 minutes later, it's an extended Wikipedia entry. :confused:
Your reply makes no sense.
Please show me where I have expressed the belief that the state has a rational reason to deny benefits to anyone based upon sexual orientation. That is what you alleged in your quoted post.
As a matter of fact, I have a rather long and documented history of questioning the state's granting of any benefits at all, to anyone, as I believe that it falls outside of the scope of a proper Republic. I also question any attempt to derive a "right" to a benefit as I believe that it gives the government more and more control over the individual. Your attempts to name call and mis-represent my motives probably add to your confusion regarding my reply.
Please show me where I have expressed the belief that the state has a rational reason to deny benefits to anyone based upon sexual orientation. That is what you alleged in your quoted post.
As a matter of fact, I have a rather long and documented history of questioning the state's granting of any benefits at all, to anyone, as I believe that it falls outside of the scope of a proper Republic. I also question any attempt to derive a "right" to a benefit as I believe that it gives the government more and more control over the individual. Your attempts to name call and mis-represent my motives probably add to your confusion regarding my reply.
If your stance is that rights conferring benefits is outside the scope of a proper Republic, then there is nothing to discuss, as this principle & practice is the foundation of our legal system. You're secretly an anarchist?
Fundamentally, Alan, bottom-line in the real world I believe you only have the "rights" that you can seize and defend through force of arms. This is pretty evident if you observe what happens in areas where...things aren't going well.
"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
And so, we form agreements with our neighbors, and create mechanisms for resolving disputes that don't involve the war of all against all.
Fundamentally, Alan, bottom-line in the real world I believe you only have the "rights" that you can seize and defend through force of arms. This is pretty evident if you observe what happens in areas where...things aren't going well. ...
Force may be necessary at times, but Gandhi and King proved there are other ways.
Force may be necessary at times, but Gandhi and King proved there are other ways.
Yes, civil disobedience is one of the most elegant of all mechanisms for resolving disputes. It relies upon the disciplines of shared sacrifice towards a common goal, utmost trust in one another, and the personal will to not 'break'. And, on the other side, at some point those being disobeyed return to their basic humanity, and, despite the Hobbesian view of brutishness, relent their use of force.
Our legal system is a plum of such humanity. Of course, having grown up with a Constitutional lawyer for a father, I have a great deal of regard for this system. It's been with great joy and excitement that I've been listening to the arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday & today. I am particularly fond of the standing arguments - very interesting! Who has access, how, why, under what circumstances. I am devoted to the rightness of Marriage Equality, and I am compelled by the larger Constitutional issues.
We are a unique species, because we have the ability to meet each other in civil discourse, arguing important principles with the understanding that these principles build one upon another, and continue forward in time, through the practice of good law backed by good faith. Our peaceful transition of power. Our rule of law rather than religion. Our codifying of rights into commonly accepted, beneficial practices. Our used of rational thought instead of limbic brain reactivity. It's a most interesting time to be alive, and I love our country.
gimmethesimplelife
3-27-13, 9:47pm
No. They don't have the same rights IMHO with regards to "who" (as 2 consenting, single, non-related adults) they want to marry. At least not rights that are legal in every state, and recognized as a legal in every state and by the feds - and the legal benefits and obligations at all levels that heterosexual marriage has. It is different and not equal. And I personally consider that a violation of their consitutational rights plain and simple. Of course YMMV :-)!Agreed totally. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
3-27-13, 9:57pm
It's not a loaded question, at least not from my perspective. It's simply a question of the concept of "rights", as generally expressed by those who feel that theirs are being violated. Although I must admit to being curious about the seeming paradox of people approving of some restrictions, such as you and others have mentioned but feeling other restrictions are a civil rights violation.Hi Alan!
I see it this way. And I realize that there will be disgreeance with my stance and I'm OK with that.
Somewhere in the laws of this country when I was growing up I was told that all men are created equal in the US....I learned differently at a very young age, and I'm grateful for that, but it still smarts. I wonder if I can not legally marry the man I love what right does the government, state or federal, have to tax me period? I mean I pay my taxes as I don't make much and don't have a high tax burden and I do believe that taxes are the price tag for a civilized society overall. But OTOH, if I am not equal....if I can not legally marry the man I love, why is taxing me legal? I see an argument here for taxation without representation.....at least in the sense that I am taxed and not accorded the rights of a heterosexual man to marry. There are times I have wondered in the past why doesn't the government buy our citizenship from us and start us over somewhere else that has less of a problem with the issue overall.....but yes, not everyone would want to leave and also there is less of a need of immigrants of any kind these days overall due to automation of so many jobs and software replacing tasks formerly done by humans. So I see this is not a practical solution, though I'd love to see it proposed.
On the other hand, significant strides have been made in gay and lesbian rights the past few years and I'd like to think the momentum there will continue, and I do have hope that it will. Rob
PS - Also, I did mention above that how can a state tax me if I can not marry the man I love? In nine states and in DC this would not apply, just wanted to add that. Who would have thought that possible, this exception, just ten years ago?
Rob, I think you may be beginning to see the big government paradox. A government big enough to grant you the benefits you want is also big enough to deny you your desires. That's what big government does.
I say, take it out the equation and be free.
gimmethesimplelife
3-27-13, 10:09pm
I just thought as a gay man I'd shed my perspective on this issue.
I find it interesting that there are quite a few gay men out there to whom the right to marry is no big deal. Often such men don't care to re-create the heterosexual model they grew up with. My take is if that does not work for them, great....it's their lives and they have to find whatever is going to work.
OTOH, I dream of the day I can marry a man I deeply love in any state of my choosing and have it legally considered 100% the same and legally binding and valid as any man and woman's would be in any state in the Union. This is something I dream of and this is something I believe I am worth. I realize this only recently that such has been legal anywhere in the world, but it's hard to not have some resentment that the US is dragging it's feet on this issue in comparison to other countries, but still trumpets itself as the best and most progressive and the economic model for all to follow. I see a bit of a disconnect there, I really do.
Not all gay men want this right that seems so basic to me - I'm thinking we need to respect the wishes of more adults as to how they want their lives to be constructed, and not just deal with the leftovers of this one size fits all mentality we seem to have to this day. Rob
iris lily
3-27-13, 10:12pm
Yes, civil disobedience is one of the most elegant of all mechanisms for resolving disputes. It relies upon the disciplines of shared sacrifice towards a common goal, utmost trust in one another, and the personal will to not 'break'. ..
Civil disobediance is successful only in a society that is, essentially, civil. We don't know about Gandhi figures in Nazi Germany because they perished in camps.
The real Gandhi succeeded in a British society that had basic respect for the value of humanity. I don't see that as government action but as the society that directed government action. Society and government are separate but intertwined. At least, I wish.
iris lily
3-27-13, 10:38pm
[QUOTE=gimmethesimplelife;135777]... but
[the U.S.] still trumpets itself as the best and most progressive and the economic model for all to follow. I see a bit of a disconnect there, I really do.
You perceive a disconnect because it's NOT the most "progressive" (using your concept) and some of us like it that way.
As far as best economic model, I'll leave that for a different discussion that's not about the narrow topic of gay marriage.
Civil disobediance is successful only in a society that is, essentially, civil. We don't know about Gandhi figures in Nazi Germany because they perished in camps.
The real Gandhi succeeded in a British society that had basic respect for the value of humanity. I don't see that as government action but as the society that directed government action. Society and government are separate but intertwined. At least, I wish.
I think you're right. And, government is formalized social norms. I see them as points on a continuum, from complete anarchy to complete facist totalitarianism. I am a happy middle person, all in all.
ApatheticNoMore
3-27-13, 11:46pm
Civil disobediance is successful only in a society that is, essentially, civil. We don't know about Gandhi figures in Nazi Germany because they perished in camps.
I have heard the point that civil disobedience is only successful in a climate of more radical and violent forms of action. There were more violent advocates of Indian independence about when Ghandi was, and it wasn't just Martin Luther King, there was Malcolm X, the black panthers etc..
The real Gandhi succeeded in a British society that had basic respect for the value of humanity.
I'm not so sure that's a very complete read of British colonialism (basic respect for the value of humanity), but compared to the Nazis ... well geez compared to the Nazis ... it doesn't take much to look good at all!
iris lily
3-27-13, 11:55pm
..., but compared to the Nazis ... well geez compared to the Nazis ... it doesn't take much to look good at all!
ha ha ha, yup, I'm laughing. Nazi Germany does come in handy for all sorts of comparisons.
I've always been interested in the concept of rights, as interpreted by law. Don't homosexuals already enjoy the same "rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy, the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, given that the person is not a close relative or already married? The lawyers defending Prop 8 and DOMA didn't make such arguments, most likely because such arguments are akin to saying that "Negroes" had the "right" to sit in the bus, or at lunch counters, next to members of their race, just like white people did; and like saying that women have a right to be members of any private club made up of members of their own gender, just like men did. The opponents of anti-discrimination measures generally understand that the effect is what is important, not some crude lexicographic arithmetic. With regard to private clubs, the effect of importance is that unique type of access to the already-established business leaders, who, at the time, were all men. With regard to buses and lunch counters, the essential element was the inherent worth and dignity that was implicitly denied. With marriage, the critical aspect is the right to marry the person that you love.
If everybody enjoys the same "right" to marry and, as you say, "Equal rights is equal rights", are anyone's rights being violated?Using that question to challenge anti-discrimination measures confuses "rhetorically parallel" with "equal". How about we have a law that says everyone can vote for whoever they want, in elections, as long as it is someone of their own race. Is that "equal" rights? We have to consider the effect, which, of course, is that the dominant race will tend to win every election. That demonstrates why it isn't really equal rights.
Not unlike saying one has the "right" to practice one's faith as long as it is the official religion of the state.Or, as an even tighter parallel to the misguided arguments that opponents of marriage equality make: "The right to practice the faith one was born into." That's something that opponents generally try to latch onto, again, substituting rhetorical parallelism for true equality.
Rights are conferred by the society you live in. You can't take anything for granted.Yes and no. There are inherent rights (basic human rights), and granted rights (rights granted by society). The confusion between the two stems from the fact that we are tomorrow's barbarians (a line stolen from a sermon I'm offering at church in a couple of months) and, as a result, many inherent rights are either overtly denied or at this time still considered granted rights. Freedom from slavery is an excellent example of this: Freedom from slavery started out as a non-right, something that was denied, then it became a right granted by society, and now it is understood to be an inherent right. As society matures, we realize the full extent of inherent rights.
Our current understanding of what constitutes inherent rights is this:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Of course, there are many other rights we Americans are afforded, which are granted by our society. However, the point is that, based on basic logic and past experience, a good number of these granted rights, and even some things that aren't rights of any sort yet, are actually inherent rights.
"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
What this blurb calls "natural rights" I've labeled above as "inherent rights"; what this blurb calls "legal rights" I've labeled above as "granted rights". Just alternative words for the same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
ha ha ha, yup, I'm laughing. Nazi Germany does come in handy for all sorts of comparisons.
Goodwin was here.
Freedom from slavery is an excellent example of this: Freedom from slavery started out as a non-right, something that was denied, then it became a right granted by society, and now it is understood to be an inherent right. As society matures, we realize the full extent of inherent rights.
That's a great example to illustrate a problem that can arise in any society. That "inherent right" to freedom from slavery could at any moment be repealed just as swiftly as it was "granted". The comparison between what rights people should have and what rights people do have is often paradoxical.
Personally, I think everyone should have the right to pursue happiness in any way they see fit assuming it does not inflict harm on others (effectively interrupting their pursuit of happiness). I don't think the government should be involved in setting definitions of what form that happiness should take beyond a few basic precautions designed to protect individuals who can not protect themselves.
As others have said, marriage is a construct. In the sense of government oversight (over-reach?) it is a binding, legal agreement between two individuals. The government does not and should not tell me that I can't enter into a business agreement with anyone based on race, sex, creed, orientation, etc. The choice of who I do business with is mine. I don't see why marriage should be any different.
1232
That's a great example to illustrate a problem that can arise in any society. That "inherent right" to freedom from slavery could at any moment be repealed just as swiftly as it was "granted".There is slavery in our world today. That doesn't mean freedom from slavery isn't an inherent right.
The comparison between what rights people should have and what rights people do have is often paradoxical.I wouldn't say "paradoxical" because that implies that everything supposedly must be the way it should be, and the world simply isn't perfect. That's not a paradox; it's an unfortunate statement of reality.
Personally, I think everyone should have the right to pursue happiness in any way they see fit assuming it does not inflict harm on others (effectively interrupting their pursuit of happiness).The question of opposing rights often comes up, but there is a very intuitive way of working out such conflicts: The side who's skin is closest to the effect of the opposing rights prevails: It explains why freedom from slavery trumped the ownership right of slave-owners, as an example.
If you think it is a right, are the qualifiers you mentioned a violation of those rights?I think the SC's primary job should be to determine if an issue before it is consitutional or not and to protect the minority rights even if the majority choose to deny those rights to them. I don't think rthe SC should make policy based on what may be the "possible" social implication of their decsions somewhere down the road. That should be secondary. If one of the social implications to shooting down Prop 8 and DOMA is that it opens up the potential for other future "marriage equality" types of situations (polygamy, relatives, a man and his goat) then so be it. Deal with that when it happens. I don't feel it is right to deny one group of individuals a certain constitutional rights because there may potentially be negative social implications for some, as there will be very positive social implications for others.
So I feel the Justices should look at the issue as either constitutional or not. I personally consider both DOMA and Prop 8 unconstitutional and a violation of rights - some Justices agree, some don't agree - and I think that is what they should be arguing, not the social issues (both positive and negative) surrounding it. And if they do disscuss the social impact of their decisions, then it shouldn't hold up any decsion of the constitutionality of the issue. One Justice made the comment that they should take making this decsion very slow because of the social implications. They said that basicly "it took us almost 100 years from the abolishment of slavery to give blacks the same constitutional rights as whites because of the social issues involved, so we need to take our time with the gay marriage issue too". So for 100 years a group of people had to be without their consitutional rights as equal citizens of the USA because of fear of the "potential" social ramifications. I think that is horrendous.
So to me it is pretty simple - the SC just needs to look at DOMA and Prop 8 and decide if it is consitutional or not (whatever the majority culture says). If it isn't, abolish it. If it is, keep it.
As others have said, marriage is a construct. In the sense of government oversight (over-reach?) it is a binding, legal agreement between two individuals. The government does not and should not tell me that I can't enter into a business agreement with anyone based on race, sex, creed, orientation, etc. The choice of who I do business with is mine. I don't see why marriage should be any different.
Agreed! And even if there are potential negative side effects to a segment(s) of society from certain "legal buiness agreements", or may open future disscussions about other types of "contracts", that doesn't mean that the government should deny equal rights to engage in that contract between people. I mean, sure maybe if women were limited by law to being employed only when single and/or childless or as chattels and property of their spouse then some secment of society - the traditional nuclear family and childern - may be better off with Mom at home. But to deny a specific group or person a right that other's are entitled too for fear of potential negative social impact to society is just plain wrong IMHO. We should all be allowed to make our own choices even if those choices aren't always enspoused by the majority.
...that doesn't mean that the government should deny equal rights to engage in that contract between people.
I agree Spartana, but in reality I'm not convinced that most of the government's actions are aimed at either recognizing any group's right to marry or at preserving the sanctity of anything beyond the bottom line. If the designation "married" is opened up to a wider group it means paying out more spousal benefits. Our government has no problem spending huge sums on ventures as worthwhile as, say...war, where a significant portion of the funds flow in the circle of political life (politician>contractor>donor>politician). But if we have to pay out a few hundred billion for gay spouses to be insured or receive death benefits or file a different tax status how is that going to benefit our elected elite? The more I listen to the rhetoric from Washington the more I'm convinced that no one there gives a damn about the actual topic of marriage, they're only in it to consolidate whichever base they pander to before the next election. End of cynical rant.
Rest assured that many people prompting the government to practice marriage equality are doing it for reasons other than just "the [financial] bottom line". It is in the best interest of opponents to try to reduce such things down to just money, because it allows them to try to prevail on the basis of appealing to the lowest instincts of potential supporters, personal comfort and luxury, without having to address ethical considerations like fairness, justice, equity, affording worth and dignity to others, etc.
Rest assured that many people prompting the government to practice marriage equality are doing it for reasons other than just "the [financial] bottom line". It is in the best interest of opponents to try to reduce such things down to just money, because it allows them to try to prevail on the basis of appealing to the lowest instincts of potential supporters, personal comfort and luxury, without having to address ethical considerations like fairness, justice, equity, affording worth and dignity to others, etc.
You can't legislate or mandate ethics. Mainstream acceptance requires mainstream support, which this society is providing incrementally. Opponents don't have to "reduce such things down to just money" as that is truly the prevailing benefit to the legislative and legal actions.
You can't legislate or mandate ethics.However, government can behave ethically, and matters brought to the public forum can be considered and decided based in good part on society's morality rather than relying solely on a myopic (money-only) view.
Rest assured that many people prompting the government to practice marriage equality are doing it for reasons other than just "the [financial] bottom line".
Possibly, but since I have managed to figure out where I stand on the issue I'm now more interested in watching those that are IN government than those who would try to influence it. I'm bored with the latter.
So for which people IN government is their definitive evidence that they support marriage equality for strictly financial reasons, as you seem to be implying?
Possibly, but since I have managed to figure out where I stand on the issue I'm now more interested in watching those that are IN government than those who would try to influence it. I'm bored with the latter.
I don't really agree about the money angle, and pretty much agree with bUU on that. The thing is, recognizing gays right to marry isn't CREATING new people, is it. Presumable those gay people, if straight, would marry anyway and require spousal benefits, so the money issue is a misdirect at best, and meant to sway those who aren't exactly 'deep thinkers'. Their sanctimonious (moral) arguments are losing so they resort to the 'more for THEM is less for you' argument to try and trivialize the very real moral reasons people want this.
Some people want to get married and some don't, straight or gay. Recognizing their right isn't going to make a gay person, who never intended to marry, suddenly run out and marry.
Gays really aren't new life forms! >8) They are just people who want to be married, with ALL the bells and whistles that go with it. All of them!
You're missing the point peggy. It has nothing to do with creating new people ("new life forms"), only a new class of taxpayer/benefit recipient. It also has nothing to do with more for them, less for you because the financial considerations are not front and center and not being heavily touted. I hypothesized that people or entities with financial skin in the game are where the opposition is really coming from. There are enough committed gay couples in this country that it would cost employers a great deal of money if spousal benefits are made available to them. And the bigger the employer, the bigger the cost, if you get my drift. As one of the champions of the corporate greed is the root of evil cause you can probably make the link between higher benefit costs and political pressure.
I'm sure there are members of Congress that have strong moral inclinations both pro and con regarding gay marriage. Plenty of voters do as well and there is no shortage of sanctimony in the debate. All I'm saying is that I don't think that the real motivation driving the topic in the hallowed halls of Congress is a purely moral argument.
But I think YOU are missing the point Gregg. All those gay people, if straight, would still marry SOMEONE, presumable. And wouldn't THEIR STRAIGHT spouses want benefits? Are you trying to say a gay person COSTS MORE than a straight person? A gay spouse demands MORE/DIFFERENT benefits than a straight spouse? A spouse is a spouse, and each will want benefits. And whether they got something hanging between their legs or not makes no difference in benefits ;) (thus the new life form comment).
ON the other hand, I suppose you could be looking at gays kind of like the right wing looks at illegals. Since they aren't 'legal', we can use them, but pay less! A sub class of folks to exploit! Good for your bottom line, but kind of sucks for the exploited!
Actually, for gay men, the benefits would be less as men still can't get pregnant, or need OBGYN on a regular basis.
All I'm saying is that I don't think that the real motivation driving the topic in the hallowed halls of Congress is a purely moral argument. It probably less about money and more about wanting to keep their constiuents happy - and making sure that they are re-elected again :-)! If a Calif congress person is pro-gay marriage, and a majority of voters voted to ban gay marriage (prop 8) then the congress person is going to want to support their consituents beliefs irregardless of their own pro or con stance or moral/ethical issues. Well... at least a "good" congressional representative, who wanted to represent the will of the people, should do that. So that is why it's at the (supposidly impartial and politically untouchable) SC level.
Whatever their decsion ends up being, I am hoping that it will not be based on economic or financial issues even if there is a huge negative financal impact. That shouldn't matter any more than the voting majority's feelings (at least on violation of contitutential issues) or social issues. A Negative economic impact was the biggest argument as a reason not to abolishing slavery. It was believed (and rightly so) that there would be such a huge negative economic impact of the country if slavery was abolished that we would be in serious trouble as a nation. And while there was a huge negative economic impact, that argument shouldn't be used as a means to justify denying people equal rights and freedoms any more than possible future social ramifications or a majority vote should be - whether it is for losing a free enslaved work force or having to pay more in government (or private sector job) benefits to more married couples.
Also, we don't regulate how many kids people can have - kids that must be covered under their parents medical insurances at company costs or by taxpayer funding via Medicaid. So the economic costs to busines or government shouldn't really be a factor or defensible argument in terms of adding a gay spouse into the mix. I mean, if The Duggars can have 20 kids, Kate whats-her-face can have 8, and Octo-Mom can have 14 kids and their jobs has to cover their medical insurances (or in Octo=Mom's case the US taxpayer) because we don't limit the number of children people can have, then adding a spouse to the rooster (and one that probably isn't going to have a lot of off-spring) probably will have minimal finacial impact to a companies bottom-line.
I don't know which leaders are viewing this solely as a money issue, but if any really are I would have to see it as just a reflection of the scurrilous marginalization of people they don't like by refusing to acknowledge them as people, and looking at them only as money. I'm not saying such people don't exist but I would think the dispassionate reduction of people from status as a human being to status as a number of dollars would be more offensive, and more broadly offensive, than just objecting to marriage equality on dogmatic grounds. Insensitive, avaricious rationalization is the root of may evils in society.
Someone being gay is a non-issue in my life. I don't shun someone OR go out of my way to befriend someone based on their sexual orientation. Frankly, I don't really care if someone is gay or not. My brother is and I love him dearly. It makes me angry that he is denied privileges that I take for granted simply based on who we choose to share our lives with. That's wrong and we need to fix it. I believe our society has changed, evolved if you will, to a time when we are more accepting of all sorts of people who are not the WASPs that started this little experiment. Progress has been made, but much more is needed. That's all.
But I think YOU are missing the point Gregg. All those gay people, if straight, would still marry SOMEONE, presumable. And wouldn't THEIR STRAIGHT spouses want benefits? Are you trying to say a gay person COSTS MORE than a straight person? A gay spouse demands MORE/DIFFERENT benefits than a straight spouse?
As much fun as it is to discuss theoretical fallacies, it doesn't really help. All those white people, if black, would still... There just isn't any value derived from that. The point is that, for now, those gay people can't marry in most places. The point is not that they would cost more than a straight person if they marry, its that they cost less if they don't. I'm not cynical regarding gay marriage, but I can't get around my cynicism regarding Congress. I don't believe there are very many individual Congressmen that reduce people to dollars as a rule, but there are parts of the argument where dollars do come into play and it is silly to deny that has an effect. If it helps I consider these to be facts:
1. The biggest corporations in the US employ the most people so, presumably, also employ the most gay people.
2. For those employers it is not gay marriage per se that is the issue, its spousal/partner benefits. The more people they employ that are provided those benefits the more it will cost.
3. Big business is the major source of funding for candidates during election cycles.
4. A Congressman who's constituency is overwhelmingly in favor of one position or another has little choice but to vote along those lines. As with any issue it comes down to the "battle ground" states where the voters are split. That's where the money comes in because....
5. Donors know they can throw large amounts of money into an area to swing votes with a media blitz (Prop 8 anyone?). And...
5. Campaign strategists know that they can reverse negatives come election time with the same tactic. IOW, if a representative votes against a gay marriage initiative because that is what the big donors want even thought 65% of their constituents are for it (or visa versa) the strategists know they can sweep that under the rug by inundating voters with other images when the time is right.
It's not that anyone is deliberately dehumanizing anyone else although that can easily be one end result. And I'm not discounting or ignoring the evangelical vote or others with philosophical and/or religious conflicts to gay marriage. I just think this is one issue where, for the reasons listed above, money is behind the opposition in Congress. YMMV.
It's worth noting that executives and representatives of Microsoft, Amazon, and other local employers were among the largest donors to the marriage equality campaign up here in Washington.
True, but that is executives acting as individuals, not necessarily a reflection of how their companies are operating (although it could be). Think about Warren Buffett saying we should raise his taxes... Also, in WA terms, Boeing and Providence Health didn't seem to throw their weight behind the movement. Nothing is ever 100% in any one direction and marketing takes many forms.
True, but that is executives acting as individuals, not necessarily a reflection of how their companies are operating (although it could be).It actually is. Both of those companies extend benefits to same-sex married couples, to the extent that current law permits them to.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.