Poop gate has been overpooped

[dragonfliet]

However, I find it strange that nobody ever mentions the thing that I find the most disturbing about this whole affair. This wasn't just a law. It was a constitutional amendment. The ability to amend the constitution is one of the people's ultimate tools to keep the government in line. The whole reason this was passed as an amendment was because the people didn't like the decisions the court was rendering. Now the courts are telling us that they can trump even that. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that when we get into the whole state constitution vs federal constitutional, but I still find the whole turn of events disturbing.

I find it completely logical. If Alabama had passed an amendment to the constitution that said that mixed race marriages could not be allowed, people would say OF COURSE the federal government retains the right to overturn that. In other words, the federal government has the right to regulate the states. How far that goes, of course, will likely be debated should this make it to the SC.

There's a few other arguments I've seen used in support of Proposition 8 that I'd like to clarify as well. For instance, it seems to me that some people are arguing that marriage is not a right. I might have agreed with you at one time, but I no longer feel that way. It truly is essential to the human race, and those that have the ability to be married should do so. This does not change the fact however that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. In my view gay marriage is diametrically opposed to everything I believe a marriage to be. They simply aren't the same thing, and they should not be treated as such under the law.

In your view gay marriage is diametrically opposed to everything you believe a marriage to be--that's fine. I'm sure in your view marriages that are primarily undertaken for tax purposes between people who don't care for each other, or for family pressure, or because they want a lavish ceremony and then they can get divorced, etc. are also opposed to what you believe marriage to be--that's also fine. The Mormon church can refuse to admit members that support or participate in gay marriage and that is fine and the Catholic church can refuse to accept divorces and that is fine. All of those opinions: fine.

The law, however, shouldn't say that a couple much be this much in love or have x amount of children or cannot remarry unless the spouse committed adultery, or be of such and such race or sexuality, etc. The law isn't to enforce someone's belief in what a marriage should be or to back up a religious point of view. Many people that marriage is an expression of commitment and romantic fidelity and many just think it is a responsibility and some think it is something else entirely. The only way to reconcile this is to allow people of all beliefs/religions/races/sexualities to enter into a union together. If you don't like it: don't do it, no one is asking you to, but to impose your particular religious belief system onto other people is what the constitution is there to protect us from.

~Jason

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The law, however, shouldn't say that a couple much be this much in love or have x amount of children or cannot remarry unless the spouse committed adultery, or be of such and such race or sexuality, etc. The law isn't to enforce someone's belief in what a marriage should be or to back up a religious point of view. Many people that marriage is an expression of commitment and romantic fidelity and many just think it is a responsibility and some think it is something else entirely. The only way to reconcile this is to allow people of all beliefs/religions/races/sexualities to enter into a union together. If you don't like it: don't do it, no one is asking you to, but to impose your particular religious belief system onto other people is what the constitution is there to protect us from.

I agree with you except you are kind of making the case for non-governmentally sanctioned marriages. What does the state offer you that you can't get by yourself? They aren't going to storm your house and prevent you from making a commitment to another person in the form of a ceremony that you call marriage. The only thing you miss in that case is the piece of paper.

The associations with marriage as far as the government is concerned are things that people should just get fixed anyway. Why can't I extremely easily pass power of attorney over to a sibling that I'm very close with if I'm alone at an old age? Why couldn't I to a close friend? Obviously you can, but the barriers in front of doing these things are so ridiculous that obviously a single certificate that essentially guarantees this will happen is much more interesting than going through the process to do it yourself.

Why not fix the worst problems instead of ignoring them completely?

 

[Grobut]

I agree with you except you are kind of making the case for non-governmentally sanctioned marriages. What does the state offer you that you can't get by yourself? They aren't going to storm your house and prevent you from making a commitment to another person in the form of a ceremony that you call marriage. The only thing you miss in that case is the piece of paper.

A piece of paper that grants rights nothing else will, such as the right to not testify against your spouse (this one can not be replicated any other way), garuenteed visitation rights and power of attorney (Hospitals will refuse a private contract if the patients own family gets involved, or just as a matter of course, and only beeing married to the patient can prevent that), aswell the certainty that your rights will be upheld by every state, which is by no means a certainty with private contracts, and so on and so forth.

The institute of marriage is so ingrained in the system that no private contract can make up for it, not as things are now, and not unless the whole system is torn down and rebuild entirely from scratch, so right now, that means gay people are ****ed if they can't get married, and something bad happens.


Now i don't care which solution wins out, be it either that gay people are allowed to marry, or that the system is rebuild so every couple can enjoy equal protection by other means, hell, if anything i might even prefer the latter as it would also protect couples who don't belive in the institution of marriage, and why shoulden't they also be protected? if they are a comitted couple that's all that should matter, by all means just create a "couples kit", a legal doccument you sign that gives you legal status as couple with all the rights that implies.
But one of thease two has to happen, or there will be inequality, as indeed there is now, and that's just not ok.

 

[dragonfliet]

I agree with you except you are kind of making the case for non-governmentally sanctioned marriages. What does the state offer you that you can't get by yourself? They aren't going to storm your house and prevent you from making a commitment to another person in the form of a ceremony that you call marriage. The only thing you miss in that case is the piece of paper.

The associations with marriage as far as the government is concerned are things that people should just get fixed anyway. Why can't I extremely easily pass power of attorney over to a sibling that I'm very close with if I'm alone at an old age? Why couldn't I to a close friend? Obviously you can, but the barriers in front of doing these things are so ridiculous that obviously a single certificate that essentially guarantees this will happen is much more interesting than going through the process to do it yourself.

Why not fix the worst problems instead of ignoring them completely?

Obviously I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that such issues need to be fixed posthaste, marriage does a great many things quite simply (well, relatively simply) from visitation rights to power of attorney to inheritance laws to taxes to citizenship to adoption, etc. and it is available RIGHT NOW to heterosexual couples and denied to homosexual ones. Sorting a way to have encompassing and protective but not easily overturned or inadequate laws for such other situations as you described would be a significant and long legislative process that isn't likely to happen now. You are also forgetting the problem regarding spousal loopholes in criminal law and the fact that power of attorney which seemingly simple is a freakishly complicated manner when it comes to blood v contract. It is similar to saying: okay, black children's schools ARE inadequate, but why focus on the racial disparity when the bigger issue is that schools in general are underfunded and that money isn't being distributed in a proper fashion to assure that no matter, people have access to good education. A true statement that glosses over the discrimination that is going on (and yes, I know you dislike the racial comparisons but I feel that are extremely apt even if in this case it refers to schooling and is definitely different).

YES we need to fix the other things, but that gay marriage should just be tossed aside. Both of these things need to happen.

~Jason

 

[Crotale]

Actually, you can sign over power of attorney to anyone of your choice, be it a sibling, lover, longtime friend, etc. As long as that person has the binding document in hand, no hospital can deny them access to the patient they represent.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

edit: but if it does apply to gays, because they're people, it doesn't have to apply to polygamists, because they're not people, right?

I contend that polygamy leads to other more complex legal issues such as medical power of attorney. Of course we could turn marriage into a complex legal negation and contract signing ceremony to compensate.

Otherwise I'm cool with polygamy. Let it be.

Got any other slippery slopes you want to talk about?

Read much?

How did you not know I was high-lighting the last sentence in support of your post? I though you were "gifted"?


Oh, and let us never forget...

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Obviously I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that such issues need to be fixed posthaste, marriage does a great many things quite simply (well, relatively simply) from visitation rights to power of attorney to inheritance laws to taxes to citizenship to adoption, etc. and it is available RIGHT NOW to heterosexual couples and denied to homosexual ones. Sorting a way to have encompassing and protective but not easily overturned or inadequate laws for such other situations as you described would be a significant and long legislative process that isn't likely to happen now. You are also forgetting the problem regarding spousal loopholes in criminal law and the fact that power of attorney which seemingly simple is a freakishly complicated manner when it comes to blood v contract. It is similar to saying: okay, black children's schools ARE inadequate, but why focus on the racial disparity when the bigger issue is that schools in general are underfunded and that money isn't being distributed in a proper fashion to assure that no matter, people have access to good education. A true statement that glosses over the discrimination that is going on (and yes, I know you dislike the racial comparisons but I feel that are extremely apt even if in this case it refers to schooling and is definitely different).

YES we need to fix the other things, but that gay marriage should just be tossed aside. Both of these things need to happen.

~Jason

Those "other things" are things that can, ultimately, affect every American. I'd say they are quite a bit more important to attend to than something that is just bothering a few people in a minority group. Yes, *gasp* I know, not every gay person gives a crap about proposition 8

As far as whether gay marriage should be recognized by the government, I think that's up to our elected officials to decide.

 

[Crotale]

How did you not know I was high-lighting the last sentence in support of your post?

I thought you simply did not read my entire post.

I though you were "gifted"?

That was cheap shot.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

That was cheap shot.

And "Read much" wasn't?

 

[Crotale]

And "Read much" wasn't?

If I offended you with the read much comment, then please accept my apology. Read much is a fairly standard response in relation to overlooked or misinterpreted postings. It was not meant to be a personal insult.

 

[Larkin]

"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."

That is your argument? When are you going to realize it doesn't apply?

 

[BillyBadAss]

That is your argument? When are you going to realize it doesn't apply?

Why wouldn't that apply?

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

That is your argument? When are you going to realize it doesn't apply?

That is your argument? When are you going to realize that it most certainly applies?





.<---space saver dot™

 

[dragonfliet]

Those "other things" are things that can, ultimately, affect every American. I'd say they are quite a bit more important to attend to than something that is just bothering a few people in a minority group. Yes, *gasp* I know, not every gay person gives a crap about proposition 8

As far as whether gay marriage should be recognized by the government, I think that's up to our elected officials to decide.

Strangely enough, more than one piece of legislation can be put through at a time. Just because there is room for improvement in one arena doesn't mean we should simply ignore the other, especially when that other thing is a problem of laws directly enforcing bigotry and separate and unequal treatment for segments of the population based on sexual orientation.

As for gay marriage, the fourteenth amendment says the elected official's bigotry can't be allowed. You can slippery slope argument it all you want, but there is no good reason why it wouldn't cover it unless you believe that the amendment applies only to newly freed slaves (despite never once saying so in the language that is left much more broad), a position that hasn't been supported in over 100 years in constitutional rulings.

~Jason

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Strangely enough, more than one piece of legislation can be put through at a time. Just because there is room for improvement in one arena doesn't mean we should simply ignore the other, especially when that other thing is a problem of laws directly enforcing bigotry and separate and unequal treatment for segments of the population based on sexual orientation.

A law defining who can get married is not a law enforcing anti-homosexual behavior, whether you'd like it to be or not.

As for gay marriage, the fourteenth amendment says the elected official's bigotry can't be allowed. You can slippery slope argument it all you want, but there is no good reason why it wouldn't cover it unless you believe that the amendment applies only to newly freed slaves (despite never once saying so in the language that is left much more broad), a position that hasn't been supported in over 100 years in constitutional rulings.

The language of the 14th amendment is intentionally vague and ambiguous. The language in large portions of the constitution is like that so that it could be interpreted for whatever times would come. That said, there is nothing in the particularly quoted portion of the 14th amendment that is not afforded to people regardless of their sexual preferences, since marriage is not a "protection of the law" and having the right (or privilege, whatever) to marry is not specifically a guaranteed provision of the constitution or the government. They can tell any two people that they can't have a marriage license, even if they are straight.

 

[PeterVenkman]

A law defining who can get married is not a law enforcing anti-homosexual behavior, whether you'd like it to be or not.

The language of the 14th amendment is intentionally vague and ambiguous. The language in large portions of the constitution is like that so that it could be interpreted for whatever times would come. That said, there is nothing in the particularly quoted portion of the 14th amendment that is not afforded to people regardless of their sexual preferences, since marriage is not a "protection of the law" and having the right (or privilege, whatever) to marry is not specifically a guaranteed provision of the constitution or the government. They can tell any two people that they can't have a marriage license, even if they are straight.

Confused by your argument here. First you say the constitution is intentionally vague and ambiguous so that it can be interpreted to apply to different situations, then you say the 14th amendment shouldn't apply to marriage because it wasn't specifically intended that way by the framers...which is it? If its intentionally ambiguous then there should be nothing wrong with interpreting it to protect marriage equality.

Also, constitutional law is a bit more complicated than "the text of the US constitution and nothing else." In order to truly understand the scope of federal power we have to look at how the constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for hundreds of years. Marriage is a specifically guaranteed provision of constitution and the government ever since Loving v. Virginia, when the Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are afforded high protection under 5th amendment due process and 14th amendment equal protection doctrines.

Again, it's the US Supreme Court's JOB to interpret the constitution. You don't really have the right to get all self righteous about your understanding of the meaning of the Constitution without so much as referencing a single piece of case law clarifying its meaning. That's why we have the courts. If you're just going to ignore everything they've ever said then we aren't going to get very far in a debate about constitutional law.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I'm guessing you read none of my earlier posts in this thread, since I've already pointed out that the ruling could have gone either way and that the judge didn't technically do anything wrong by making the ruling he did. That IS his job.

I'm saying that the "text of the 14th amendment" that is so commonly used as evidence that marriage should be available for anyone doesn't actually contain anything useful when talking about gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the rulings that have happened in regards to anything. If a ruling is evidence then use the ruling. Additionally, earlier in the thread I was making the point that lots of people who want gay marriage have issues with people being polygamists or in incestuous relationships, but technically those people should still be afforded the "equal protection of the law" if that is the way the decision goes and get married by law themselves. It's not a slippery slope, it's a logical conclusion based on the facts in this case. If "anyone" has the right to marry who they want, then you can't really fairly restrict people from marrying who they want, even if it is multiple people or a very close relation.

As far as Loving v Virginia goes, it hasn't yet set a legal precedent for how gay marriage will work out. A decision in the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles says, in part:

Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

 

[PeterVenkman]

I'm guessing you read none of my earlier posts in this thread, since I've already pointed out that the ruling could have gone either way and that the judge didn't technically do anything wrong by making the ruling he did. That IS his job.

I'm saying that the "text of the 14th amendment" that is so commonly used as evidence that marriage should be available for anyone doesn't actually contain anything useful when talking about gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the rulings that have happened in regards to anything. If a ruling is evidence then use the ruling. Additionally, earlier in the thread I was making the point that lots of people who want gay marriage have issues with people being polygamists or in incestuous relationships, but technically those people should still be afforded the "equal protection of the law" if that is the way the decision goes and get married by law themselves. It's not a slippery slope, it's a logical conclusion based on the facts in this case. If "anyone" has the right to marry who they want, then you can't really fairly restrict people from marrying who they want, even if it is multiple people or a very close relation.

As far as Loving v Virginia goes, it hasn't yet set a legal precedent for how gay marriage will work out. A decision in the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles says, in part:

Trust me I've been following the thread for a while now, read your comments. I agree with you on the issue of polygamy, I personally don't see anything wrong with it legally. If multiple people want to enter a contract with each other, great grand wonderful. I got nothing against polygamy.

Your last post specifically stated that marriage has not been defined as a right either in the constitution or in the government, my response was that your claim was incorrect. Loving v. Virginia was the first, but many supreme court cases find constitutional backing for a fundamental right to marriage. This is what I was trying to respond to.

Finally, on Loving and Robles: Loving is about race, which means it is not specifically about gay marriage but all of the arguments are the same and the precedent fits. It's funny to me that you reference Hernandez v. Robles, because I frequently use that case to show an example of bad marriage jurisprudence. According to the judges in that case, the real purpose of marriage is to reign in straight male tricksters that would otherwise cheat on their wives and abandon their children. That case makes the assumption that men can't keep it in their pants and marriage laws are the only way to keep them in line. I'm not exactly sure that is the way we want to codify a right to marriage.

 

[-Jes-]

Meanwhile, in America, people are getting butthurt over the possibility of gays marrying.


And I love how Rambowjo's sarcasm flew STRAIGHT over Elmur's dumb face.

 

[BITE_ME]

By the time this argument gets settled, gay people will be obsolete.



sarcasm