SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

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.

Quote:

---

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 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Damn, I love these conversations!

---

Took the words right out of my mouth redfox!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveinMN

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.