|
Post by Yaw on May 9, 2004 12:45:57 GMT -5
In Narninian's defense (just so people know), he wasn't making those arguments. He was summarizing what he perceived the arguments in the thread against gay marriage to be, to have them confirmed before he commented on them.
Which is not to say that people shouldn't be commenting on those arguments. I just notice with the quoting that it could be confuse people reading, and they might think those were Narninian's arguments. Which they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Narninian on May 17, 2004 7:23:43 GMT -5
yes - thank you Yaw. I am defintely pro legalizing gay marraiges - I was just trying to make sure that I had the arguments right before I could counter them - then I Went and disappeared for a while and other people countered them.,
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on May 17, 2004 9:17:53 GMT -5
I am against gay marriage.
But then again, that should hardly be surprising, since I am against ALL marriage. Marriage is a state and religious tool to artificially maintain social stability at the expense of the individual, and distribute resources to one group at the expense of another. As we see with the fight over gay marriages right now.
Social warfare. The only result of statism.
|
|
|
Post by Narninian on Aug 6, 2004 11:41:33 GMT -5
it may be a 'tool' but marriage is definetly an emotially special part of everyone's lives..
I cant comment further, because Im not married, nor have I found somoene that I could call 'the one' -but I know marriage is a very important part of people's lives - and is certainly different than simply living with somebody and having kids with them/
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Aug 6, 2004 18:54:38 GMT -5
Narm,
Why do you think gay marriage should be legalised? How does Christianity fit into that? May I ask which denominaion you are part of?
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 7, 2004 19:25:27 GMT -5
I am against gay marriage, pretty mainly for finanncial reasons.
I'd rather not pay more in taxes, so that married gay couples can have benefits.
other points
I don't believe a person of one sex has ever had a right to marry someone of the same sex. Too many rights are just being made up.
Marriage by its terms means a legal status given to man and a women bound by union. (This is traditionally what it means, but as of today I have to admit this is not unanmious)
This definition is not discriminatory because it applies to everyone equally. A gay man can't marry a man and neither can a straight man.
Homosexuals are also not a protected or suspect class of people.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Aug 7, 2004 20:46:48 GMT -5
ccg111777
So rights have less to do with it than your pocketbook? Also, how exactly would allowing more people to get married affect your personal tax burden? Should married couples not have access to the same benefits?
ccg111777
And before about 50 years ago women couldn't vote. Your point? Just because discrimination has been established for thousands of years doesn't make it right or justifiable. Even if the rights to rectify such a situation have to be "made up", it's better than letting a situation of injustice continue.
ccg111777
Of course it's discriminatory. A straight man can marry the person he loves. A gay man can't. What legitimacy does the government have to determine that one adult, consentual relationship is sanctionable over another?
ccg111777
They certainly are in Canada and many European countries. "America discriminates, therefore it is right" isn't much of an argument.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 3:52:02 GMT -5
Financial reasons are enough for me not to want gay marriage because it deals with a right that I don't really care all that much about. If all marriage was impossible I wouldn't really care all that much. As long as I am still able to associate with who I want and raise a family with who I want, that is what really matters.
Thought I don't think the issue affects me that much. I do think its a good and intersting topic though, and as a law school student it gives me a chance to go wild talking about it. So, here it goes.
As far as a ban on gay marriage being discriminatory, It's not discriminatory on its face because it is one rule that applies evenly to everyone. Maybe it is discriminatory in fact but for that you have to prove that there was a law that was made with the intent to discriminate. you don't even get to this analysis unless the allegedly discriminated against classification is not a suspect class, and in this country homosesuals just aren't. Maybe In Canada and Europe they are a suspect class but that is very very low level persuasive precedent in the U.S. The only true suspect classes in this country are racial classes. Gender and and legal immigrants are considered Quasi-suspect. I don't think the Supreme Court is going give protected status to a group because they prefer one kind of private part over another. You may disagree with me, but I just don't see it happening. The Supreme Court is just to reluctant to give out protected status.
The recent decisions allowing gay marriage cause all kinds of complications because of the privileges and immunities clause. Basically, this just says that If I am granted a privlege in one state (like marriage) and I go to another state, the state where I now live has to recognize that I am privileged (married). It's one thing for gay marriage to be legal in Massachussetts when you're living in South Carolina. But a gay couple moves from MA to SC and the SC government is forced to recognize their status, it really ticks people off. Here's why. It's federalism, and self-determination. The citicizens in states that use their rightful powerful, through representative government, to determine what privileges they will grant their citizens are being railroaded by the P&I clause. If one state wants to allow gay marriage, ok ,if another state doesn't, ok. Gays then could move to a state that allows it, if means that much to them and be married there. Part of the reason why states would ban gay marriage is because married couples usually get tax-breaks. If you widen the pool of people elligible for these these marriage tax breaks, it logically would put a heavier burden on the state budget and generally on the rest of the taxpayers to make up the difference. People in many states are already very sensative when it comes to the government dipping into their pocket-books. Since Bush is "Mr. Tax-Cut" You can see why he really wants to disallow gay marriage. If even after these tax-cuts and after all the war debt, if it can be shown that people paid more in taxes anyway! because of gay marriage or not?! Bush would be political deadmeat. He really would go down as one of the worst presidents if that happened. That is why he is pushing this constitutional amendment so much. I am strong Bush supporter saying this. I think this move to end gay marriage is about 80% political 15% financial and 5% moral, yet it seems to be morality that people use for justification. Its not really about morality. That is just a front in my opinion. The Political and financial reasons are better reasons. People shouldn't try to hide them. Some people may get off on trying to show other people they are morally superior to them, and they are above the pettiness of politics and money, but that is a joke. No one is above the pettiness of politics and money. trust me on this.
Instead of an outright ban on gay marriage I think they should find a way to tweak the privileges and immunties clause to find a way to allow states to determine whether they want to recognize gay marriage or not without the federal government stepping in. This is easier said than done. P&I clause solves many other problems between the rights of citizens in different states, but I still think it would better then an outright federal ban on gay marriage. Hopefully it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 4:41:54 GMT -5
YAW,
Here's one more point about discrimination. Discrimination isn't necessarrilyrright or wrong. Only certain kinds of discrimnation are considered socially unacceptable. There is discrimination in just about everything we do. When buy clothes and pick jeans instead of kahki's we discrimnate. Gays discriminated against people of the opposite sex. Straights discriminate against people of the same sex. Even if it is true that America allows for discrimination against gays and other countries don't. It doesn't necessarily mean that America is wrong and those other countries are right. Gays have to earn the right to not be discriminated against beforey ou can say America is wrong for allowing discrimination against them. That argument is very sneaky and I give you credit for it. It would be a good argument if you prove why they shouldn't be discriminated against. You're just missing a step YAW.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Aug 8, 2004 4:57:58 GMT -5
Honey,
"It would be a good argument if you prove why they shouldn't be discriminated against."
What type of argument would demonstrate that? What is the standard to be reached?
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Aug 8, 2004 5:03:28 GMT -5
Since Auntie must check this thread one ina a while: What is the name of the bird on the icon you use? Is it "Anonymous woman with blue hair"? I hope to G-d it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Aug 8, 2004 5:55:44 GMT -5
Financial reasons are enough for me not to want gay marriage because it deals with a right that I don't really care all that much about. That seems shallow to me. You seem to be reducing the rights of some people down to a matter of money. Perhaps if you were gay, or someone close to you was you would'nt be so callous.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 10:27:25 GMT -5
You're supposed to look to see if the classification (here homosexuals) have been historically discriminated against. I think this is an easy one. Yes they have. You would of still need to show proof. (not difficulty I think, get some expert opinions).
Next you are suppose to see if the class is of kind in which the characteristic that defines the class is one that a person in that class has some kind of control over. In other words. I didn't choose to be an Italian/Irish American I can't do anything about being an Itallian Irish American, so I shouldn't be discriminated against because I am an Italian/Irish American. So, you'd have to say that gay people do not have any control in their sexual preference and that preference is always going to be the same. In otherwords you have to show that liking men or liking women is just like having a certain ethnithcity. This will be hard to show because ethinicity is hereditary. Gayness is not determined by hereditary. Its more a mental thing, and you get into all kinds of complicated pyschologyical and philosophical questions really have little basis fact and just about all based in theory.
But before you can even ask these questions you have to ask whether the discrimination in question deals with a fundamental right! If I remember correctly marriage is not considered a fundamental right because it is merely a legal status given at the discretion of the states. (If that 's right, as I think it is (someone might want to do the research for me), then the supreme court is not even going to care about it, unless some other right that is fundamental is involved.
If you can show all these things though, then you can get a protected status for a classification.
So I have reduced one particular right to my pecuniary interest. I don't think that makes me callous or shallow. Pecuniary interest is the reason why we have legal marriages. I mean, I said that the right to marry wasn't a very important right even to myself. Why then should I care a great deal how it affects other people? Just because someone thinks its super-important doesn't obligate me to also think its super-important too. If you think that it makes me shallow and callous, then I'm sorry you feel that way, because I am not trying to be shallow or callous.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Aug 8, 2004 10:39:35 GMT -5
As far as a ban on gay marriage being discriminatory, It's not discriminatory on its face because it is one rule that applies evenly to everyone. According to this line of reasoning, a ban against inter-racial marriage would also be non-discriminatory. It applies to everyone right? A white man can only marry a white woman. A black woman can only marry a black man. That's ridiculous. Of course it's discriminatory. So is not allowing gay marriages.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 11:36:48 GMT -5
These are not my tests these are the test the supreme court uses to determine a suspect class.
First of all you have know what it legally means to be "discriminatory on ON ITS FACE"
In order for a law to be "discriminatory on its face" it has to indicate that one group of people is prefered over another group. There is no classification for a ban on interacial marriage, it applies to everyone. so it can't be discrimination on its face. It could be "discrimination in fact" but only if you show law was passed with the intent discrimnate against a that group.
That still doesn't mean the supreme court is going to do anything about it. Because the discriminated against group has to be suspect class. I already said everyone can't be a class at all. So you would probably be better off trying to make due process argument, saying everyone has a fundamental right to marry whoever they want and no a government can interfere with this right. But the bottom line is and I've already said this is that the right to marry is not a fundamental right at all. Marriage is a discretionary legal status given by states. They don't have to let anyone get married if they don't want to. The reason why interracial marriage is allow in every state is not because of some constitutional reason but because people who want to regonize interracial marriage out number those who don't. See it's all about what the states want to do.
|
|