Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Marriage equality


Karlis

Recommended Posts

But, how is "concenting" defined? "Child" is a subjective term also. In many countries women can be married at 12. Just because the US has a age limit of 18 years does not mean people under this age do not consider themselves to be consenting. My wife had a "Talk" with her 12 year old sister the other day, trying to tell her that she is not an adult and should not have relationships with "older" (16 or 17 year olds) men. Clearly these young 13+ year olds believe that they are adults and can make choices, but does that make what they want to do OK? How is anyone hurt? No one is, if it is in a concenting situation. Raping a child would be the same as raping a man or woman, so do not use a rape analogy to say children can not consent.

You see, the point is it is not so black and white as saying consenting adults. Sorry you get offended but the comparison is a fair one. The only reason children are considered unconsenting is a Traditional and prejudice one. Just as gay marriage is a similar issue.

The adoption of gay marriage will just be another bump on the slow slide of the US into a seeming Utopia that will eventually be unable to defend itself or get anything done, then eventually it will have a bad year, fall apart and be overrun by its enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory

Sorry, I must have missed this.

You are right, different places have different laws concerning this. Let's face it though, some teenagers are mature and some aren't. You can take a bunch of sixteen year olds from anywhere and they will all be different. Some will be sexually active, some won't be. If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't be so many teenage pregnancys. My point is some teenagers are as smart or mature as you are, some aren't. Teenagers do a lot of things that they shouldn't due to their age (drink alcohol, take drugs, smoke, have sex) but not all teenagers do these things.

You are right some teenagers do have consentual sex with an adult. I don't see this as particularly wrong. In America you have statutory rape which doesn't really make sense to me. Some teenagers do look older then they are and can have a fake ID so an adult can believe they're over 18 and have no idea otherwise, yet if someone finds out they go to prison!

I don't think gay marriage will lead that way. It's quite a cynical view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • venqax

    50

  • TFSM

    28

  • shadowhive

    25

  • DieChecker

    20

Someone is bound to take this wrong, so here we go.

I have no issue with the gay folks wanting the same marriage rights as the straights. It's a non issue, let them be happy. If it really bothers you, then look at it as evidence of natural selection. The straight folks are having babies, and the gays aren't(For the most part).

Now, I'm not implying that the gays are weak, quite the contrary, it takes a special kind of tough to do wat they do(A bit like giving birth backwards, I imagine)

So, just leave the gays alone and go thump the bible elsewhere. There's alway going to be gay folks, there's always going to be straight folks. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, I have made the argument that a constitutional amendment is required for what is sought here. Once this point was convincingly made (others, yourself included, did this as well as myself) this thread became a dead end.

Why is a Constitutional amendment necessary, Harte?

Marriage is not a protected right, so why is a Constitutional amendment necessary to 'unprotect' it from the conservative majority?

The Constitution was founded on the principles set forth in, among other documents, your Declaration of Independence. So why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to point out (again) that all people are created equal? That all people do have certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Why was a Constitutional amendment necessary to grant those rights to blacks?

Don't Americans swear by, and live by, their Constitution?

If you don't, what right do you have to call yourself an American?

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage itself is not a "right," that's why.

If the argument is to be made that "rights" are being violated by gay marriage bans, it is necessary to create a "right" to marry in order to argue on this basis.

That's all.

Otherwise, the Federal Government has no place entering into the argument at all.

Pretty much what I said earlier.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage itself is not a "right," that's why.

If the argument is to be made that "rights" are being violated by gay marriage bans, it is necessary to create a "right" to marry in order to argue on this basis.

That's all.

Otherwise, the Federal Government has no place entering into the argument at all.

Pretty much what I said earlier.

Harte

You misunderstand me, I think, Harte.

I know marriage is not a right. So why are the conservative majority 'protecting' it as if it is their right?

If something is not a right, but is a general contract (as marriage is), then why is it being protected in law as if it is essentially a 'club privilege'?

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perfectly legitimate to limit who can enter into a legal contract, right?

Legislation is supposed to be enacted by the impetus of the people's will.

The people's will is that marriage should be limited this way.

Since the Constitution leaves such things to the states, it would be necessary to "federalize" marriage before the Feds have any say.

The context of the constitutional part of this debate was such that the Federal Judiciary should, by fiat, create a law that overrides the will of the people. This based on the Federal authority to ensure "equal protection," or whatever.

I say that the Feds have no say until there is a Federal Law.

Such a law would have to be a constitutional amendment because the constitution at this time does not allow for any such federal control over the matter. That is clear in the constitution where everything not granted to the Feds is specifically left to the states and/or the citizens.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perfectly legitimate to limit who can enter into a legal contract, right?

Not if it's based on race, gender, diabilities or sexual orientation, it's not.

Legislation is supposed to be enacted by the impetus of the people's will.

The people's will is that marriage should be limited this way.

Legislation is not supposed to be directly enacted by the "impetus of the peoples' will". We hire representatives that we trust are better informed both of the law and other information to make those decisions for us.

I also don't think it's just for laws to be enacted based on the peoples' will when the peoples' will is solely based on biases and inaccurate marketing campaigns.

Since the Constitution leaves such things to the states, it would be necessary to "federalize" marriage before the Feds have any say.

Hasn't the issue been escalated in the courts to the point that the federal government is required to enter into it as it will be reaching the Supreme Court?

Limiting contracts based on specific classes of citizens (i.e. homosexual) is also, arguably, a violation of the 14th amendment, and individual states' laws do not trump constitutional protections.

Edited by TFSM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is a Constitutional amendment necessary, Harte?

Marriage is not a protected right, so why is a Constitutional amendment necessary to 'unprotect' it from the conservative majority?

You are partly answering your own question without realizing it. Marriage to whomever you want is not a protected right. Regulation of marriage is not a denial of equal protection rights. So, you are correct in that an Amd SHOULD not be necessary to put this issue to rest. What needed to be said was said in Baker. The problem is the malfeasance of the courts. While the Const's intent re these issues is clear, it is by no means unlikely that the courts-- who have absolutely no accountability for their actions-- will ignore the Const, and abuse their powers of "interpretation" to CREATE such a right by cynically alleging that the Const somehow "alludes" to it to some fashion. The only way to PREVENT abusive courts from doing that is actually Amending the Const so that is specificallly says "no gay marriage" and there is no way around it. If the courts could be counted on to do their jobs, you wouldn't need to resort to such extreme measures. Unforunate but true, nonetheless.

The Constitution was founded on the principles set forth in, among other documents, your Declaration of Independence. So why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to point out (again) that all people are created equal? That all people do have certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Why was a Constitutional amendment necessary to grant those rights to blacks?

Don't Americans swear by, and live by, their Constitution? If you don't, what right do you have to call yourself an American?

Yes, they do (or should) but again you are making assumptions about what the Const means and requires that are not true. All men are created equal was never intended to imply that they stay that way, or that their created equality implies any kind of uniform treatment except by the law in specific kinds of issues. Obviously, the right to liberty was not intended to apply to slaves. If it did, they would have done away with it right then. Their defintion of "men" was different from the one you are presumably using. You can't fault them for that. Nor can you now "pretend" that they meant what you WANT them to mean. Those of us who take the Const seriously are VERY aware of what is and is not in it.

I think the courts have said that anyone who happenstantially is born in US borders can call themselves an American. Yet another gross distortion of the document.

Edited by venqax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are partly answering your own question without realizing it. Marriage to whomever you want is not a protected right. Regulation of marriage is not a denial of equal protection rights. So, you are correct in that an Amd SHOULD not be necessary to put this issue to rest. What needed to be said was said in Baker. The problem is the malfeasance of the courts. While the Const's intent re these issues is clear, it is by no means unlikely that the courts-- who have absolutely no accountability for their actions-- will ignore the Const, and abuse their powers of "interpretation" to CREATE such a right by cynically alleging that the Const somehow "alludes" to it to some fashion. The only way to PREVENT abusive courts from doing that is actually Amending the Const so that is specificallly says "no gay marriage" and there is no way around it. If the courts could be counted on to do their jobs, you wouldn't need to resort to such extreme measures. Unforunate but true, nonetheless.

The opposite is also true. They could just as easily make an amendment that says yes to gay marriage.

You keep saying what was needed to be said was said in that case, but that case is several decades old. You act like that ruling is the definitive, that it will never change. You've said it yourself that any such ruling COULD be undone, so why do you act like this one never will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because at the moment there is no serious evidence that that ruling will be overturned any time soon. It hangs on a swing vote that is rather unpredictable on the matter of homosexuality and equal rights. Personally, it should remain a states issue, not a federal one. Period.

Marriage isn't a protected right, and what I meant by falling through the cracks is that it's an assumed right. It's a solidly based privilege that the Constitutional writers assumed wouldn't be tampered with, considering from the start it's been considered an important part of family life. Truthfully, they've left a legal loophole for court mandated divorces, but thanks to politics and not wanting to set bad precedents, it's not likely to happen any time soon. So, the same thing that keeps same sex marriage from grabbing onto the Equal Rights ammendment also makes the safety of marriage a conditional safety to begin with. Hence, fell through the cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if it's based on race, gender, diabilities or sexual orientation, it's not.

That can be true, depending on what kind of contract you are talking about. But laws against discrimination are just that-- statutes that have been passed specifically prohibiting discrimination in certain instances. They are not the 14th Amd EPC from the Const. If the EPC covered all those things, then anti-discrimination laws would not be necessary, right? The EPC only applies to govt and laws. Anti-discrim can apply to the private realm as well. Tho those certainly are an encroachment on PROPERTY rights which some on here have been supportive of, at least in theory.

Legislation is not supposed to be directly enacted by the "impetus of the peoples' will". We hire representatives that we trust are better informed both of the law and other information to make those decisions for us.

Sometimes. But states do have initiative and referendum provisions which do allow for the will of the people to make laws directly, sans representatives. That is the situation in Calif with Prop 8. The proposition process is there specifically becauase the folks DON'T trust their reps. to be "better informed" in all cases. That's probably a good thing. If you have ever seen a state legislature in action, and come to the conclusion that "these people are better able to make decisions for me than I am" you must be a pretty un-abled person. I know a US Congressman who's afraid Guam might tip over and sink due to overcrowding. And another who hopes the rover sees the US flag the astronauts left on Mars.

I also don't think it's just for laws to be enacted based on the peoples' will when the peoples' will is solely based on biases and inaccurate marketing campaigns.
That is a valid opinion, I guess, but it would invalidate most laws. Most peoples' opinions about most things are based on partial or inaccurate info and personal biases. Some people somewhere voted for Nancy Pelosi, after all. Are the marketing campaigns for gay marriage "unbiased" in some way? Of course not.
Hasn't the issue been escalated in the courts to the point that the federal government is required to enter into it as it will be reaching the Supreme Court?

No. It won't necessarily get to the SC-- they only take the cases they want to, and there are lots of reasons they might not want to hear this. And the last time the US SC did hear a case like this, again, Baker, they specifically said the federal courts DON'T have jurisdiction. Based on that alone, Walker should have denied the case and the SC could reject outright-- and overturn Walker-- without even hearing arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes. But states do have initiative and referendum provisions which do allow for the will of the people to make laws directly, sans representatives. That is the situation in Calif with Prop 8. The proposition process is there specifically becauase the folks DON'T trust their reps. to be "better informed" in all cases. That's probably a good thing.

It's not relevant to this discussion, but only some states have referendum provisions. And those that do create chaos. Consider when CA approved at least 4 different insurance propositions that each conflicted with each other. Chaos. Courts attempted to divine a way thru that mess. While the "will of people" is a good thing, it doesn't always translate well into statewide referendums. IMO.

Edited by ninjadude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not relevant to this discussion, but only some states have referendum provisions. And those that do create chaos. Consider when CA approved at least 4 different insurance propositions that each conflicted with each other. Chaos. Courts attempted to divine a way thru that mess. While the "will of people" is a good thing, it doesn't always translate well into statewide referendums. IMO.

It is entirely relevant to TFSM's assertion that elected reps are supposed to make all these decisions for us (unless, of course, courts do) and that the publics direct input is therefore irrelevant and there is no place for it lawmaking.

On THIS issue, in particular, it has been exceptionally important because it has been put to direct referenda so many times in so many places. In the Prop 8 case that is EXACTLY what happeneed. In Maine, the referedum UNDID what the legislature has done. So how is not relevant to this? GG. Over half the states have referenda/initiatives or both, in case a fact is of interest. Regardless of their pluses and minuses they are big factors in state politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite is also true. They could just as easily make an amendment that says yes to gay marriage.

You keep saying what was needed to be said was said in that case, but that case is several decades old. You act like that ruling is the definitive, that it will never change. You've said it yourself that any such ruling COULD be undone, so why do you act like this one never will?

Yes, an amendment could say that. If one did, then a right to gay marriage would be established and states would have no choice but to recognize them. That is what happened with the 18 year-old voting rights issue. Likewise with womens suffrage back in 1919. Given that such an amd would take 2/3 of each house, and then 38 states, I don't see that happening, tho. 19 states have gone in the direct opposite direction and only a couple have even approved it legislatively-- which is what it would take.

There is nothing, tho, that says states currently cannot have gay marriage. If the people say they want it and vote for it, or if the state legislature does, whatever the state's rule it, then it is fine. No one has claimed that ALLOWING it is unconstitutional. Just that the courts have no authority to force it on states that do NOT want it. All I have said is that it is something that should be determined by the states thru the normal political process, be it legislation or referenda. And no, I would not mover or leave if it passed in my state. It would just be a new entry on a long list of laws that I don't like. I'm sure everyone can make a list like that.

And yes, the SC could reverse itself. I have not said that could never happen. Tho just being a couple decades old is not usually a sufficient criterian for that. Roe is also only a couple decades old and even a conserv court hasn't seemed eager to revisit it. Never mind cases like Brown, reversing descrimination. That is REALLYL old. Should that be revisited too? The same argument could be made that it is based on an erroneous "interpretation" of the 14ths EPC.

Edited by venqax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite is also true. They could just as easily make an amendment that says yes to gay marriage.

This was what I was talking about.

I said it would require an amendment. I was not saying there should be an amendment to disallow gay marriage.

Also, when I said the "impetus of the people's will," I was referring to representatives as well as constitutional conventions and also to ballot initiatives.

All of the above represent the will of the people, though admittedly the "people" often get it wrong, as far as what I think should be the outcome.

Yes, the representatives are instruments of the people's will. They may not poll their entire constituency on every question before voting on it, but they do face the public every two (or six) years.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is entirely relevant to TFSM's assertion that elected reps are supposed to make all these decisions for us (unless, of course, courts do) and that the publics direct input is therefore irrelevant and there is no place for it lawmaking.

Sorry I didn't want to derail the topic into referendum theory. But..

On THIS issue, in particular, it has been exceptionally important because it has been put to direct referenda so many times in so many places. In the Prop 8 case that is EXACTLY what happeneed. In Maine, the referedum UNDID what the legislature has done. So how is not relevant to this?

the problem is that they'll have a referendum next week, month, year and say the exact opposite. It creates chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.