California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[Michelle]

Currently only the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa allow same-sex marriages along with Mexico City. Portugal and the US, as far as I can find, are the only countries considering allowing it at the moment. It seems to me that we are ahead of the curve.

[eqgumby]

Currently only the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa allow same-sex marriages along with Mexico City. Portugal and the US, as far as I can find, are the only countries considering allowing it at the moment. It seems to me that we are ahead of the curve.

Do any of these countries have a succesful model of a marital contract that discourages any potential abuse or challenge to the validity of teh marriage?

[Michelle]

Do any of these countries have a succesful model of a marital contract that discourages any potential abuse or challenge to the validity of teh marriage?

Gee, you don't ask for much do you...

I have no clue.

[The Silver Thong]

We had our first gay marriage divource a couple years ago. Welcome to the fun and games lol

[supervike]

I'm completely unsure how a 'marriage' between two gay lovers affects my own marriage or my 'ideal' of the word.

What a silly argument.

[eqgumby]

I'm completely unsure how a 'marriage' between two gay lovers affects my own marriage or my 'ideal' of the word.

What a silly argument.

THAT is what I am asking!

There are people that are CLEARLY against it! Hell, California voted to BAN it! And that's all fine, I am OK with that and even with their being "against" it or whatever!

I'm just asking, why! And I get all this weird static about "accepting" someones lifestyle and morality, and their "sexual" something or other...and I wonder if these people have a problem with GAY SEX and equate legalizing marriage between gay people with accepting their "sexual practices". But, I get NO response!

[danielost]

I guess that's sort of a given. What rights did any one group lose when African Americans were given the right to vote?

In the case of giving gay people the right to form a domestic partnership exactly like a straight couple, what rights are being taken away from whom?

I'm not even arguing here, I'm just trying to find the logic.

simple the white males up to that point were deciding what the laws were going to be. this time it was a reduction in rights rather the removal of rights. and it was a good thing.

there are no constitutional amendments for anyone to get married or to form a domestic partnership. you give gay people that right as a constitutional amendment then they could start saying no one else has a right to be married. because then they will be the only one's with said right spelled out.

[danielost]

Currently only the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa allow same-sex marriages along with Mexico City. Portugal and the US, as far as I can find, are the only countries considering allowing it at the moment. It seems to me that we are ahead of the curve.

how many of these countries have a constitutional amendment to allow it.

[danielost]

THAT is what I am asking!

There are people that are CLEARLY against it! Hell, California voted to BAN it! And that's all fine, I am OK with that and even with their being "against" it or whatever!

I'm just asking, why! And I get all this weird static about "accepting" someones lifestyle and morality, and their "sexual" something or other...and I wonder if these people have a problem with GAY SEX and equate legalizing marriage between gay people with accepting their "sexual practices". But, I get NO response!

this thread was started because the gay community is right now try to force the people of california, who voted no, to accept it.

[+HerNibs]

this thread was started because the gay community is right now try to force the people of california, who voted no, to accept it.

One group of people should NOT be able to deprive another individual of rights that all lawabiding, taxpayers should share.

Human rights shouldn't be voted on.

Nibs

[eqgumby]

this thread was started because the gay community is right now try to force the people of california, who voted no, to accept it.

OK, so...if the definition of marriage IS spelled out, all nice and legal, and it doesn't "disenfranchise" any one...whats' the problem?

It was AGAINST the law to marry another RACE not that long ago!

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

So, federal court case can have the same impact on GAY marriage, right? No need to re-write the constitution.

And this very court case FORCED many states to "accept" interracial marriage, right?

[Michelle]

how many of these countries have a constitutional amendment to allow it.

That's not something I have enough interest in to research.

[danielost]

OK, so...if the definition of marriage IS spelled out, all nice and legal, and it doesn't "disenfranchise" any one...whats' the problem?

It was AGAINST the law to marry another RACE not that long ago!

So, federal court case can have the same impact on GAY marriage, right? No need to re-write the constitution.

And this very court case FORCED many states to "accept" interracial marriage, right?

it wasn't a federal law.

[danielost]

OK, so...if the definition of marriage IS spelled out, all nice and legal, and it doesn't "disenfranchise" any one...whats' the problem?

It was AGAINST the law to marry another RACE not that long ago!

So, federal court case can have the same impact on GAY marriage, right? No need to re-write the constitution.

And this very court case FORCED many states to "accept" interracial marriage, right?

I assume so since it is legal now in all states. but the states decide not the federal government.

[Horrendus Formidonis]

this thread was started because the gay community is right now try to force the people of California, who voted no, to accept it.

And when we voted on Prop 8 when it was first proposed, the majority of California forced homosexuals to give up their dream of having a happy marriage in California.

So really, Since Prop 8 denies the rights of marriage to homosexual couples, literally denying them their "pursuit of happiness" its unconstitutional.

My logic is undeniable!

[eqgumby]

it wasn't a federal law.

It was a state law, like marriage is regulated now as well, overturned by a FEDERAL court.

[eqgumby]

I assume so since it is legal now in all states. but the states decide not the federal government.

No, the FEDERAL government ruled the STATE law unconstitutional. The same may be happening here.

AND STILL!!!! NO ANSWER!! What is wrong with gay marriage!!?? Are you all afraid?

[eqgumby]

And when we voted on Prop 8 when it was first proposed, the majority of California forced homosexuals to give up their dream of having a happy marriage in California.

So really, Since Prop 8 denies the rights of marriage to homosexual couples, literally denying them their "pursuit of happiness" its unconstitutional.

My logic is undeniable!

No, it's not.

Many would argue their pursuit of happiness is denied. I can't smoke a doobie every day when I get home from work and mellow out. Does that mean it's unconstitutional?? No.

HOWEVER...

I'm not convinced by ANYONE it should be illegal yet.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You say this is a lot in these sorts of discussions but I'm not clear on whether you accept the implications. So I'm going to ask a question, not to suggest an equivalence between two sets of circumstances but to understand how high you hold this principle: assuming minorities had equal rights (at least on paper) to representation on public issues, would you accept that the Jim Crow laws that existed for almost a century were an acceptable outcome of a democratic process? Or put in more general terms, is it acceptable for voters to do anything to or take anything from a group of people as long as it's done in a majoritarian way?

You can say that you are not suggesting an equivalence between two sets of circumstances but you are. You are making the claim that legislating to regulate the behavior of races in the public square is equivalent to legislating to regulate sexual behavior in the public square.

I have never espoused that principle. There is also nothing equivalent between sexual behavior and race as you claim. That was an old racist claim made by the left-wing progressive movement in their pseudo-science of eugenics.

Not to mention as well that you completely ignore the fact that the democrat party was also fighting to deny equal representation for all when they enacted Jim Crow laws. It was not a movement calling for EQUAL rights to representation for ALL, as I espouse to.

[Startraveler]

You can say that you are not suggesting an equivalence between two sets of circumstances but you are. You are making the claim that legislating to regulate the behavior of races in the public square is equivalent to legislating to regulate sexual behavior in the public square.

Again, you prove remarkably adept at missing the point. I'm asking you to explain how your philosophy distinguishes between such different circumstances. How far does your insistence on majoritarian-rule-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may extend? It doesn't matter if sexual behavior and race are different; if the underlying principle is that as long as people ostensibly get a vote any outcome is acceptable then the exact circumstances are irrelevant. More to the point, yes, that line of thinking justifies banning gay marriage but it also justifies Jim Crow-type laws. That's the connection between the two--taken to its logical limit, your line of thinking allows for both.

So I'll ask again: is it acceptable for voters to do anything to or take anything from a group of people as long as it's done in a majoritarian way? And if not, can you restate your philosophy in a more coherent way?

edit: Somehow I feel like what I'm saying is not going to click so let me explain further. The way you think about democracy or government or whatever (your philosophy) has to extend beyond the case at hand. It's nonsensical to rely on a principle to help guide your thinking (or win an argument) on this particular issue now and then disown that principle when applied to another issue. It doesn't matter if the two issues are unrelated. It's the principle you use to make sense of the world that connects them. And sometimes you have to apply a principle to another case to determine if it's really a principle you like and whose implications you're comfortable with.

All I'm asking is whether you believe the implications of what you're saying are different than what I've suggested.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Startraveler

[The Silver Thong]

Good luck to both of you. For Star to get a good answer and for Trueyou in providing one.

Edited January 15, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Again, you prove remarkably adept at missing the point. I'm asking you to explain how your philosophy distinguishes between such different circumstances. How far does your insistence on majoritarian-rule-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may extend? It doesn't matter if sexual behavior and race are different; if the underlying principle is that as long as people ostensibly get a vote any outcome is acceptable then the exact circumstances are irrelevant. More to the point, yes, that line of thinking justifies banning gay marriage but it also justifies Jim Crow-type laws. That's the connection between the two--taken to its logical limit, your line of thinking allows for both.

So I'll ask again: is it acceptable for voters to do anything to or take anything from a group of people as long as it's done in a majoritarian way? And if not, can you restate your philosophy in a more coherent way?

edit: Somehow I feel like what I'm saying is not going to click so let me explain further. The way you think about democracy or government or whatever (your philosophy) has to extend beyond the case at hand. It's nonsensical to rely on a principle to help guide your thinking (or win an argument) on this particular issue now and then disown that principle when applied to another issue. It doesn't matter if the two issues are unrelated. It's the principle you use to make sense of the world that connects them. And sometimes you have to apply a principle to another case to determine if it's really a principle you like and whose implications you're comfortable with.

All I'm asking is whether you believe the implications of what you're saying are different than what I've suggested.

No it is you who are adept at mis-stating reality. I have never said that majority rules in all cases of the law. You are merely trying to drag this dicussion down a rat hole by claiming that is the case. You want to assume that a person's race is equivalent to a peron's sexual behavior when the two things absolutely are not equivalent.

If you want to assume that race and sexual behavior have to be treated in an equivalent fashion then you should first explain why you find them to be equivalent. I do not accept your premise at all until you first explain why you think such a thing.

As I said before I thought such types of thinking were left behing by left-wing progressives but maybe I am wrong.

[Karlis]

I'm still waiting for a response. So is it about sex, a physical act, the rights of religion, or what? What are the arguments AGINST gay mariage? Other than it is "immoral" from a religious standpoint. Are there some?

Eqgumby, this website gives Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

I’m copy-pasting excerpts in answer to your question. I’m not including anything from the last three arguments.

What are your thoughts about these seven arguments?

Actually, there is a rebuttal on the Internet for all these ten arguments at this link

Anyway, looking forward to comments, both pro and con,

Karlis

Argument #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

… Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. …

Argument #2

… The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

… Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a … judge … the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

… Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Argument #3

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. …

… With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

Argument #4

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this … is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Argument #5

From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Argument #6

Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Argument #7

How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. …

… Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

[Startraveler]

No it is you who are adept at mis-stating reality. I have never said that majority rules in all cases of the law.

Have you not been arguing that the key to this issue is "equal representation" (which I assume to mean a vote)? Since people voted in California, the outcome is acceptable? Again, I'm asking you this. I'm asking you to coherently state what point it is you're trying to make. Can you do that?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Startraveler

[Karlis]

~~~ ...

...

In the case of giving gay people the right to form a domestic partnership exactly like a straight couple, what rights are being taken away from whom?

I'm not even arguing here, I'm just trying to find the logic.

In an attempt to clarify the picture -- if that's possible -- I'll paraphrase part of your question Eqgumby:

"What rights are lacking in a domestic partnership of a gay couple?"