California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

It's surprising the thickness of the barrier that isolates the sexual deviation.

We can find in our country's history plenty of examples of poor law. Laws that discriminate, wrongly, against certain citizens.
Eventually reason comes to play and these discriminatory laws are stricken down.. as is being seen in California.
As far as marriage in America... I'm talking licensed marriage... licensed by the states and recognized by other states as well as the federal government. I'm not sure what you are talking abou t when you say adults are not the only people that marry.
Are you referring to a state-licensed marriage?



Here again.. you like to project falsehoods on people.
I do not live in a liberal city... AND.. these public displays of affection... ... I have seen them in West Texas, Oklahoma, Fairbanks, Alaska, and in other places as well.




It is only discriminating in regards to age - adult vs minor, plurality, and what special economic arragements are bestowed upon married couples by the state.
It does not matter what other cultures do regarding marriage... we're talking marriage in the United States of America.
Marriage by the state is a license proceedure... therefore it should be applied fairly and equally to all adults of this country.
If it isn't.. this is discrimination that cannot be allowed.
Please provide me with one other example of a license given by the government to regular citizens which is legally discriminatory against certain people in our population... excluding felons which are another issue altogether.



It does not matter what your definition of marriage is.
It does not matter what my definition of marriage is.
I am talking solely about the state definition of marriage.
You keep on bringing up your own personal beliefs and feelings in this issue and they are not relavent.
Same-sex marriage should be allowed under the same guidlines, regulations, laws as different-sex marriages.
What we are talking about is a state giving license to citizens.
That license cannot be handed out to 'certain' individuals based solely upon their gender and sexuality.
The state is NOT supposed to be discriminating in that manner... pure & simple.
People who want to have a same-sex marriage and are citizens of the U.S., pay taxes like everyone else, hold the same rights under our constitution as everyone else must be accorded ALL the same licenses as everyone else.

I just can't see how you fail to understand this.

All emotion aside... not taking into account our personal feelings.. the state has a mandate to treat all citizens who are not under special exclusion (such as felons, in regards to things like voting and firearm ownership) EQUALLY.
It doesn't get any simpler than that!


Perhaps to you.
The federal government and the states cannot say that they will license marriage only if the couple can physically have sex and bear a child through that action. It would exclude too many other Americans who cannot, or choose not, to have children.
That would be a type of discrimination that is not allowed here.

Children born out-of-wedlock are not any less of a benefit to society than children who are born with parents who are married.
Marriage has nothing to do with raising children.
Parental involvement has been shown to be significant in a child's life and so the states have been taking steps to involve both parents in a child's life.



You are correct.
I never said there were laws explicitly saying we can cross dress.. but our constitution does speak of pursuit of happiness, among other things.
I used that example to show that it doesn't matter what you or I like or dislike about someone's marriage... at least as far as law goes.
I am talking about legal things here.
If two people feel like they want to get married, it does not matter to anyone whether those two people are both male or female.
I say it does not matter and what I mean by that is that in reality...
It does not affect anyone else's life.
It does not tread upon anyone else's rights as defined by our Bill of Rights.




You miss the whole point here again Oscuria (I finally spelled your name right )

Just because enough people of this nation vote for something, does not make it right, just, equal nor legal.

This is why laws that are voted in by the public can be stricken down by the courts.
Some people will vote for things that are clearly illegal.
They vote purely on an emotional basis or a religious basis, among other things.
They do not vote after making sure the law they are voting for meets the requirements of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We have laws on our books that go before the courts and are struck down, every year.

We have a history in this country of creating unjust, illegal, laws.

I'm sure you could find many examples of these if you looked.
I know I certainly could.

You should understand as well as I do that when confronted with unjust and illegal sanctions against citizens of the U.S., the will of the people be damned!
Just because a majority of actual voters vote in something.. does not make it right.
It also does NOT define the 'thinking' of America which too many people erroneously believe.
We have such a poor turnout concerning voting that the numbers cannot realistically represent the 'feelings' of all America... nor the MAJORITY of Americans!

And one last time.... the wishes of the majority are not always the right thing to do.

1) Poor laws that discriminated against basic human rights. I don't hold to the view that marriage is a human right.


2) It is not projecting falsehood. Frankly, you stating that people are accepting of homosexual public displays of affection speaks falsely on the opinions of those I know or of my neighborhood. They might not be vocal about it, but they feel similar. I do not speak for the majority, but considering that Americans would vote down a Same-Sex marriage bill has me assuming that they do not.


3) Culture in America holds to the principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. That has always been the interpretation.

License? Hmm, don't know but I can think of gun licenses as being somewhat restrictive. Aside from licenses: Affirmative Action? FA?

The laws discriminate against bigamy/polygamy. Why should the government care if I wanted to marry two wives, or three?


4) It does matter what we as a people interpret marriage to be. By doing so we can base our laws on it. If we didn't define marriage then we could marry anything.

Marriage is not anything close to being refused to eat at a restaurant or to ride a bus.

Now you are arguing your opinion on what marriage has nothing to do with. And as I stated, I will not bring up moral issues into this discussion.

Obviously we have different ideas of rights and the affects on people's life. I don't like seeing men in women's clothing walking around. I don't like seeing couples being affectionate in public, but that really doesn't matter because their right and happiness overweights mine, no? I certainly don't see anything that says this is what people should be allowed to do. That is the ambiguity of certain parts in the constitution/amendments.


5) You miss the point that we can amend parts in the constitution.

I still don't see any reason to allow gays to marry. There is no hatred in any of my feelings against gays and lesbians. I just can't see it being a reasonable outcome.

14 pages!! !!

......and oscuria still at em.

It is only defense, my dear.

I am a lone ranger.

You'd freeze to death once you got to a certain elevation. Also, the rock-face would chafe on bare skin. There's something to be said for clothing after all.

Heh. You are aware that it was the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (along with Justice Scalia) that upheld the marijuana laws?

Okay, history lesson. The northern states and anti-slave delegates fought hard to NOT INCLUDE SLAVES AT ALL in the census. Why? Because including slaves in the census had the effect of giving southern states greater power in the House of Representitives.

Devaluing slaves to 3/5ths of a person was a GOOD THING. Had slaves counted as a full person, it would have given the south greater political clout in the national government.

Ok, of course there is something to be said for clothing, but that does not mean that clothing should always be mandatory.

No, I am working off of a long-standing tradition of human rights ideology which states that government does not have the right to deprive individuals of certain rights, no matter if it is "controlled by the majority" or not. It's not a coincidence that many civil rights movements have drawn on the "rights" arguments of the Enlightenment. The Declaration of the Rights of Women formulated in 1848 is an example of this. Activists throughout the years have simply pointed out that society has often failed to live up to its ideal of "liberty and justice for all." It is entirely reasonable and justice to call government to task for its internal contradictions, whether the "majority" thinks that's okay or not.

People on ALL sides of the political spectrum have long believed that there are inherent rights, that the government doesn't simply get to decide what those are. This is not a new concept, and I'm a bit disturbed by the notion that the man-made institution of government gets to decide who is entitled to rights. Most "modern" governments profess to equality. If they're going to do that, they don't THEN get to decide that some people are more equal than others without being utter hypocrites.

I am curious oscuria, what do you want and why do you want it?

You have mentioned that you don't see the point of gay marriage, but why would that matter if they wanted marriage? Not only that, but what if they wanted the legal arrangements found in marriage for their own purposes? Finally, what if they wanted to adopt and raise children, wouldn't that make a marriage legitimate in your eyes?

As well, if you dislike PDAs and things like that, what rules would you put up? How far could they extend? Could PDAs and other things be acceptable in certain areas like particular restaurants? What about crossdressing, what rule would you have to deal with that? Do you think that the regulations you would desire would be a bit draconian or excessive?

Your problem, not mine. If people have claimed Athens as an example of democracy, then I can claim the early US to AT LEAST be relatively democratic, as we don't all function with your stricter definitions of the terms.

Ok, but do you see the issue I am having? I'll give you a hint: ideology. Not everyone thinks in the same ideological terms as you do, so invoking your ideology on others simply does not work as an argument and has no real foundation. We can say that the government "has no right" to do something, but clearly it has the power to do so, and this power has a stronger foundation in reality than your ideology. I do not think it is necessarily a coincidence either, but it is UNREASONABLE to hold any organization up to standards which it has not accepted. Given the fact that these things were not originally considered contradictions, to call them such requires a redefinition of how things ought to function. Such redefinitions are by the nature of the government, to be done by the political process, which is subservient to the majority. Honestly though, once again, you are just standing on an ideology or idea, that is obviously not universally accepted, and if it is not accepted by others, then there is no reason to acquiesce to it, and not only that, but if it is foundationless like just about all moral theories are, you cannot expect to prove it either. If you really have the view of government that you do, then you should think about a different political system, not the one that we currently have.

So?? People are stupid, and even brilliant ones can be plain and flat out wrong. I know rights is not a new concept, but it is assuredly a foundationless one. Ok, you may be disturbed by whatever you want to be, however, the fact of the matter is that it is by the powers in the government that certain things happen or do not happen within the legal structure. Whether or not this goes with or stands against the theology of rights that you espouse is meaningless. Everyone has different ideas and standards of equality, and equality is usually one of those little ideal things, rather than a law that the government is bound to uphold. It has little to no legal validity, and even the USSR claimed to seek equality despite their massive inequalities that were greater than that found in the West.

I'm quite aware of the history, thanks. Though as it was, the South had disproportionate power in the government because slaves were partially counted without having the slightest political power. I'm merely pointing out that just because something is supposedly "approved by the majority" doesn't make it acceptable, and it certainly doesn't mean that one group of people has the right to deprive another of full equality.

So? Whether or not there is a "right", there certainly is a power to do this.

Since when did equality have no legal validity? Did you happen to overlook my mention of the Equal Rights Amendment, which is valid in California? Or any of the other MANY legal acts which attempt to provide greater equality--INCLUDING for people who are non-heterosexual?

If you're happy with the current system, fine. Everything is ideology when it comes down to it, so I'm not particularly persuaded by your insistence that I'm "just being ideological." So what if I am? Your own take on the situation, which I find rather hard to discern at times, is ideological as well despite any improvable claims to objectivity. I am merely pointing out a discrepancy between rhetoric and practice, and am not particularly concerned with the fact that other societies have also been hypocritical in this respect. That does not mean that the US has not ALSO been hypocritical, and continues to be so.

BTW, the US is more accurately described as a democratic republic than an absolute democracy. I agree with you that uniform definitions of "equality" can be hard to come by. Given this fact, I'm not sure why you hold so much stock in whatever "government" holds to be true at any given moment, when most people are not in fact official members of the government.

In short, I see you positing an entirely pragmatic take on government. I'm not opposed to pragmatism, but neither am I willing to say, like Alexander Pope did, that "whatever is, is right." (This proposition too was very ideological in the context of the larger work, "An Essay On Man.")

And I'm not questioning this fact, and have no idea why you think I am. I acknowledge the existence of power. I just don't think we should blindly bow before it.