So, Alan, discrimination and injustice does exist. How do you propose to address those issues? If not the government, who?
Printable View
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.
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/2012/1...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.
then just give it to us if it doesn't matter to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
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.
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. >:(Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
You are ducking my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveinMN
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.
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.
Can we safely assume then that you don't think the concept of morality should come into play in governmental decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Oh, maybe not..Quote:
Also, Scalia might want to contemplate the morality of murder as it relates to war.
Whose morality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Doesn't matter, for the purpose of discussion anyone's will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
I can't think of a concept that is more subject to interpretation, unless it is codified by some external agency. Like a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
"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.
That's really what it comes down to. Morality is not required to be logical, reasonable, or even feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
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.
that's kind of what marriage is in general though ...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.
I believe you should derive morals from reason, and not by voting or cultural "feelings".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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. "
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 bae
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 Alan
Took the words right out of my mouth redfox!Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
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 SteveinMN
Would you feel any different about goverment involvement if these laws were uniform throughout the 50 states? Just curious.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Would I feel differently about 14 year old girls getting married? No, I'd still disapprove.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
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).....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
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.
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.
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.
From Dollars and Sense.org:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
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.
They're not. That's just one of those things people say automatically, and everyone nods in agreement cause, well, everyone says it!Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0