This goes for both Republican and Democrat, so I'm not picking sides...but what is the deal with not allowing homosexuals to get married? Nobody is saying that the church has to let them in...but the last time I checked, you can get married at City Hall. Unless you're gay, that is. So what's up with ignoring the whole separation of Church and State?
Regardless, the President has been trying to push a bill through that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, effectively making same-sex marriages invalid and illegal. Doesn't matter if a church allows them to or not. The point was that nobody was saying the church had to...all that was being asked was that they be legally allowed to get married. Why is our own government so against it? Why, in a world where people can literally get married in a DRIVE-THRU should marriage be held as such a sacred thing?
People build their comfort zones around paradigms. There exists this paradigm that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and, by allowing that paradigm to adjust, it forces whatever unbending person to accept that THEIR world isn't permanent. Nothing brings us greater satisfaction than the notion of permanence of those things we define as good and important. The sad thing is, no one is forcing Christians and Muslims to marry same sex couples in thier houses of worship any more than divorce effects their concepts of marriage. It's just another way to force their concept of civility on the world around them and exhert control, and the illusion of control brings the greates satisfaction a human being can attain. (thus: the pursuit of wealth & power, since both generally equate to control... or at least the illusion of it) ~String
String, excellent analysis. I made a comment in another thread about how one of humanity's worst traits is the desire to make other people conform to our own beliefs in order to validate them. Many people think it's a direct attack on their own worldview if someone else has a different view. The effort to have your views codified into law is the ultimate validation. And that is exactly what is at work in relation to this issue. Here you go again, Baron. So do you just not believe in the concept of individual freedom at all? Is everything to be subject to majority opinion?
Indeed, and despite my disappointment at (what I percieve as) American prejudice; the American people are the foundation of this Republic. This is why this decision needs to be made in the varios legislatures of the country and NOT the court system. I'm goint to have to agree with Baron on this one. Although I do NOT believe in the tyrany of the majority, but denying gay people the right to marry is hardly "tyrany of the majority". As I see it, there is no possible way to extrapolate a right to gay marriage (except by jurisprudence of the court system regarding the IX Ammendment, something I am opposed to). I'm not arguing against gay marriage, quite the opposite, I just want it to come about as a result of legislative action. I'm a patient man... young Americans are, in their heard, progressive people. History's crawl is just that... a crawl. ~String
String, Dude, that was excellent. Thanks for the response. I agree with your take on a lot of this, but I'm going to respond to some points that I don't. Yes it is. Marriage, which is a legal status, should not be denied to anyone who wants it. There are exceptions, of course--such as an adult who wishes to marry a minor, or an adult who wishes to marry an animal, and the reason for that is an animal can't approve the union, and a minor isn't legally able to make the decision. But for two consenting adults, there is no foundation for the argument against it. The reason they aren't allowed is as you stated--people trying to force their own beliefs on others, and that simply cannot be accepted, because it isn't constitutional. By depriving gays the right to marry is the same as depriving them the right to vote--you're essentially taking away their rights as an American citizen. I can only hope that more evidence is found that being gay is no more of a choice than being straight is a choice. Maybe that will persuade people. But even if it doesn't, and even if 99% of Americans don't agree with it, it should not be illegal, because there is nothing wrong with it.
So your opinion means that they should not be allowed to? And for that matter, don't you find the idea of marriage between a man and a woman in a quick-stop chapel in Las Vegas just as repulsive? Don't you find "Who wants to marry a millionaire" repulsive? Why is straight marriage considered such a sacred institution, when the divorce rate is more than 50%? Why is it held in such high regard when it is made into a game show on TV? It has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with people who don't like the idea of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) having sex. Rather than just letting them be, they impose a law against them! How is that fair? How is that American? And why should gay marriage--which has no effect on your personal life whatsoever--be any of your concern?
It certainly IS tyranny of the majority. When the majority stops a minority from doing something that doesn't harm or affect the majority in any way, that is pretty much the very definition of "tyranny of the majority." And I'm sure you'd agree that the overblown rhetoric from many conservatives about gays trying to "destroy marriage" is nothing but a delusion. There is no way two gay people enjoying the benefits of marriage could harm straight couples in any way whatsoever (and offending their sensibilities doesn't count as harm). Therefore, this is a matter of personal freedom, not something that should be subject to majority opinion. Also, I do believe the 9th Amendment applies here as to so much else. The proper question is not "where does the Constitution say you have the right to do X?" The proper question is always, "where does the Constitution give the government the power to prevent X?" I don't recall anything in there about a governmental power to define relationships, or to prevent certain people from having a relationship. Now, you might reply that no one is prevented from having a relationship, and it is only the legal priveledges that are in question. But I believe if the government is going to grant certain legal priveledges to certain romantic relationships, I don't see any possible principle by which it could deny them to other romantic relationships. Conversely, if it were assumed that there is no basis for granting those legal priveledges to gays, then there is also no basis for granting them to anyone else. It is not the government's place to define personal relationships. Which is why all the rhetoric about a small minority "redefining marriage" is so ridiculous -- no government and no group of people ever had the right to define it for everyone else in the first place. It is the ultimate example of a personal matter that is not the business of the majority or government.
A murder in California isn't likely to have any effect on the personal life of someone in New York City, but my guess is that most New Yorkers wouldn't want California to change their laws so as to make murder legal. See? Things have an effect on us all, regardless of distance. We, the American citizens, vote to elect our governmental officials to represent us in matters of national and international importance. I.e., the majority of voters is a meaningful thing, whether you want to believe it or not. If the majority of voters don't want homos to marry, then so be it. And if they don't want it to happen, then it's obviously of some concern to them ....whether you believe it or not. Baron Max
There are numerous things in life I find repulsive. A few examples: obnoxious people who talk too much or too loud; country music; fundamentalist tv engangelists, so-called psychics and their gullible followers; internet trolls..... and well, the list could go on and on. However, the ONLY proper reason for me to expect my government to prohibit things I find repulsive, or to pressure my legislators to prohibit them, is if they actually HARM me.
What's "harm" in your view? I mean, for example, if your neighbor plays music too loud at night and you can't sleep, and that causes problems for you at work, is that "harming" you? If a husband goes out and gets AIDS from a prostitute, then brings it home and gives it to his wife, did the prostitute "harm" anyone? Or did the husband "harm" the wife? Some people have differing views of "harm", so be careful how you answer that question or ones similar to it. There's direct "harm", then there's indirect "harm", and it's not always so simple as you seem to make it out to be. Baron Max
You're comparing gay marriage...to murder? Wow. OK. First, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Second, if a gay couple gets married, nobody dies. Life isn't ended unjustly when a man marries another man. And there is no negative effect on the lives of anyone else. In the day-to-day routine of people, gay marriage will have no effect. Hey, gay people have already gotten married in some states! Are you any worse off? I believe it. I never said I didn't. But that doesn't make it any more right. I suppose when black people were forced to sit on the back of the bus, that was OK, too, because the majority of people wanted it that way? And slavery was cool, because the majority of people wanted it that way? And not allowing women the right to vote was awesome, because the majority of people wanted it that way? The "Majority Rule" mentality is a bad one. We are supposed to have equal rights, and certain groups of people are not supposed to be excluded or given more rights than others. By denying gays the right to get married, you are doing the same thing as not allowing women to vote, or not allowing black people to drink from the same fountain as a white person. There simply is no difference.
A highly disingenious answer (and what's more, I think you know it is). A murder is a direct act of harm against another person. A gay marriage is not. It is not the case that for a gay couple to get married, a straight marriage must be dissolved. It is not the case that for a gay couple to have legal rights, the legal rights of straight couples are somehow diminished. Your example doesn't hold water. Try again. Certainly it's a meaningful thing, but the way I see it, it should only be relevant in situations that can only be resolved through a vote. Situations where there is no middle ground and we must make a choice one way or the other. But gay marriage is not such a case. It is not a zero-sum game in which for gays to win, others must lose. It's a win/win situation: everyone marries who they want, and it harms no one else. You seem to be a huge admirer of majority opinion. Do you believe that the majority should be able to get legislation passed to prohibit anything that is not liked by most voters? What if the majority doesn't like a certain genre of literature? Or a certain color of clothing? Or certain models of vehicle? What if the majority of people don't like your favorite tv show? How would you react to an effort to outlaw it? Where does imposition of majority opinion stop? And if you think there is such a line, by what principle do you define it?
I may suggest, then, never marrying a fellow woman. If I may add, Sandy, you're normally a bit more driven in your commentary than this. It goes without being said, that you aren't enamored with homosexuality-- you need not even bother saying so as EVERYBODY on this website knows--before you say it--exactly what you think. Why not elaborate your point a little more and contribute to the discussion at hand. Dear Lord, Baron... does everything come back to being compared to murder with you? Have you no other tune to play? On this issue, I'm generally of the mind to agree with the process of your thinking (not necessarily the result), but you have to do better than that. Again, the two concepts don't mesh because ONE is civil law governing sanctioned institutions the other is criminal law govering penalties for crimes and such. For starters, Article IV, Section I of the Constitution (also known as the "Full Faith and Credit" section) states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." It has been argued that if one state recognizes gay marriage, all others have to as well because of this act, NO MATTER WHAT federal or state laws declair. Do you know why this is? Because the Supreme Court, back in the middle of the last century, stated that southern states couldn't refuse to recognize the interracial marriages of the north (they didn't like the idea of "black men marrying our white women"). The same arithmetic, if applied to this case, would indeed protect the institution of marriage no matter where the gay couple went. You may actually be making sense there. And Liege-- I definately see where your logic is coming from. And I do like the line of thinking that we sholdn't ask the question, "Is this a right granted in the Constitution?" but "Is this a power expresly granted to the government by the Constitution?". But, even if that is the way of thinking, I am still of the mind that THIST particular issue is one which states are granted to power to regulate. Is it uneven? Yes. Would I weep if the Supreme Court held that NO government in the USA could show a disparity of treatment towards heterosexuals over homosexuals? No. In fact, I think it comes close to denying people equal protection under the XIV Ammendment. But I am trepedatious about constantly having the Supreme Court make decisions that should be allowed to the citizens of each state and not to a group of nine aging justices. ~String
