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