|
Author
|
Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
So where were you when the last election went down? I went and read the wiki article on DOMA and I was surprised in myself that the act doesn't really seem that bad after all. I think that the words in the laws need to be well defined and that the definition that DOMA provides are what, or very close to, the definitions that were in mind when various laws revolving around marriage were written. Still though, it seems wrong to pass laws against some group of people, which is how I interpret the 14th amendment. But I don't read the 14th to require that laws be passed to open up all the laws to include everyone into everything, it just prevents new laws from being made that restrict rights of people. But, if there are old laws that don't consider some new group, the 14th doesn't require that old law to be changed to include the new group.
Regardless... you're wrong. If the government has a system in place to recognize the marriages of one group of people, and not another, then the government is denying a set of people within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I don't think the 14th amendment requires that marriage be redefined everytime someone comes up with a new way to contort it.
But all that being said... if there can be no laws preventing them from getting married, then they can get married. So there you go. No, they couldn't get married even without laws preventing them from getting married because marriage didn't include them in the first place.
By default, gays are not included in marriage. 1) Sez you. There are thousands of gay marriages out there right now. The government just chooses to not recognize them. Well if the government isn't recognizing them then they aren't married, technically, right?
2) But assuming you're right, then according to the 14th amendment, the default has to change. Otherwise, the law will be favoring one set of citizens over another. I think you're misinterpreting the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment does not require marriage to be changed to include gays. Got'cha. Just because it says they need to be treated equally, it doesn't require that the law actually treat them equally.
Their needs exceed actuality. I'm sure that last line will get butchered and taken out of context and used to misrepresent my real position (not necessarily by you), but I'll leave it in there anyways.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
So where were you when the last election went down? I'm all confused now. What was the law/issue with gay marriage in the last election? Was it DOMA or something else? I thought it, the issue with the last election, got shot down but DOMA was passed under Clinton so now I don't know what I'm typing about. ABE: ok, it was the FMA that was the issue in the last election that didn't pass. I need to do some more reading about this. I think I might have been refering to the FMA upthread in some places where I typed DOMA. I had the two confused  or thought they were the same thing or something. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
I think that the words in the laws need to be well defined... If you feel a real need to make sure the law excludes homosexuals, sure.
I don't read the 14th to require that laws be passed to open up all the laws to include everyone into everything, it just prevents new laws from being made that restrict rights of people. Your interpretation's wrong. See previous post. Under your interpretation, it would be perfectly legal to pass a law saying white people don't have to pay taxes. After all, no law's been passed against black people in such a scenario.
No, they couldn't get married even without laws preventing them from getting married because marriage didn't include them in the first place. Only if you legally define marriage to exclude them. In which case, even in your half-reading of the 14th amendment, a law is being made to exclude.
Well if the government isn't recognizing them then they aren't married, technically, right? How do you figure? They don't get any of the nifty tax breaks, or medical visits, or other government perks that come with marriage. But as far as two people devoting their lives to one another goes, their marriages are already in place. The "more liberal society" into which you're so worried about being forced is already there. Societal changes are, astonishingly enough, a social matter that require no government intervention. And the change has already occurred. Now it's just a question of whether the government will do its job, and treat those marriages equally.
I think you're misinterpreting the 14th amendment. Feel free to explain why, if you ever think of a reason. I'll be eager to hear how "equal protection" does not require equal protection.
Their needs exceed actuality. I'm sure that last line will get butchered and taken out of context and used to misrepresent my real position (not necessarily by you), but I'll leave it in there anyways. Since it's a grammatical abortion of a non-answer, I wouldn't know where to start butchering it.
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
What was the law/issue with gay marriage in the last election? Eleven states passed anti-gay laws related to marriage.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to marry.
Why doesn't it?
quote:
Actually, in the message you replied to, and the one upthread that you didn't reply to, I gave a link that said that gays had no constitutional right to marry (in New York specifically).
I fail to se why that is relevant.
quote:
The 14th amendment protects gays from things like DOMA, which I'm not supporting.
The 14th was used to strike down the state law that prevented two consenting adults (who happened to be of different races) from marrying. Specifically, The Equal Protection Clause was created so that no individual state could deny rights to people.
Where is it written that you have the right to deny others' rights just so you can continue to enjoy cheaper healthcare? quote:
I've never seen that written anywhere and I don't believe that I have any right like that.
You have said that you wish to deny gays the right to marry only because you believe it would make your healthcare costs and taxes go up. I don't think that this is a good enough reason.
quote:
Then again, you haven't told me what rights I'm denying others anyways, so I don't even know what you're typing about.
Don't play coy. The ability to make a secular legal marriage contract whom one chooses is a pretty basic American right, don't you think? Kind of like being able to vote, or to not be detained without probable cause, or the right of free speech.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
I mean, what exactly are you being forced into? quote:
A more liberal society.
That's just what Jesse Helms was fighting against, too.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
I don't read the 14th to require that laws be passed to open up all the laws to include everyone into everything, it just prevents new laws from being made that restrict rights of people. Your interpretation's wrong. See previous post. Under your interpretation, it would be perfectly legal to pass a law saying white people don't have to pay taxes. After all, no law's been passed against black people in such a scenario.
That'd be restricting the rights of non-white people.
No, they couldn't get married even without laws preventing them from getting married because marriage didn't include them in the first place. Only if you legally define marriage to exclude them.
Even if you don't legally define marriage at all, because that's what marriage is, with no extra definitions attached to it.
Well if the government isn't recognizing them then they aren't married, technically, right? How do you figure? They don't get any of the nifty tax breaks, or medical visits, or other government perks that come with marriage. But as far as two people devoting their lives to one another goes, their marriages are already in place.
But marriage includes all the nifty tax breaks n'stuff, simply devoting your life to someone is not marriage.
The "more liberal society" into which you're so worried about being forced is already there. Societal changes are, astonishingly enough, a social matter that require no government intervention. And the change has already occurred. I'm not worried about the more liberal societies simply existing, I'm worried about the government becomming more liberal.
I think you're misinterpreting the 14th amendment. Feel free to explain why
I already did.
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
That'd be restricting the rights of non-white people. Congratulations, you're catching up. Having a system in place that allows only straight people to get married restricts the rights of non-straight people.
Even if you don't legally define marriage at all, because that's what marriage is, with no extra definitions attached to it. No it isn't. Gosh, we can do this all day. Although strangely enough, I can point to existing gay marriages.
But marriage includes all the nifty tax breaks n'stuff, simply devoting your life to someone is not marriage. Marriage didn't exist until after tax breaks? Weird.
I'm not worried about the more liberal societies simply existing "I mean, what exactly are you being forced into?" "A more liberal society." I'm worried about the government becomming more liberal. It's strange that you would define equal treatment of all citizens as liberal.
I already did. Actually, all you said was "I think you're misinterpreting the 14th amendment."
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
I've been watching this, Dan, and you're doing GREAT! We're going to win this battle one day, and it'll be in no small part because of people like you. Thanks so much! You've made every point I would have wanted to make, but there's one small detail that I'd like to add. If I may interrupt for just a sec... Catholic Scientist wrote:
quote:
Even if you don't legally define marriage at all, because that's what marriage is, with no extra definitions attached to it.
Not according to Mirriam-Webster, which offers as one of its primary definitions of marriage:
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
W.W.E.D.?
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 175 of 243 (352126)
09-25-2006 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by berberry
09-25-2006 1:55 PM
|
|
See, now I'm gonna blush.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 1:55 PM | | berberry has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 176 of 243 (352133)
09-25-2006 2:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 170 by nator
09-25-2006 1:25 PM
|
|
You have said that you wish to deny gays the right to marry only because you believe it would make your healthcare costs and taxes go up. That's somewhat inaccurate. Its not only because of those reasons and the money isn't the big issue.
The ability to make a secular legal marriage contract whom one chooses is a pretty basic American right, don't you think? Kind of like being able to vote, or to not be detained without probable cause, or the right of free speech. Yes, I just think it should be called something else and leave "marriage" out of it. We could set it up so they have all the same benefits as those benefits arrise rather than just open up the definition to include unintended realationships that could allow for dishonest advantages to be taken of it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by nator, posted 09-25-2006 1:25 PM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
You have said that you wish to deny gays the right to marry only because you believe it would make your healthcare costs and taxes go up. quote:
That's somewhat inaccurate. Its not only because of those reasons and the money isn't the big issue.
What secular (iow, legitimate) reason is there?
quote:
Yes, I just think it should be called something else and leave "marriage" out of it.
Why do you believe that you own the word "marriage"?
quote:
We could set it up so they have all the same benefits as those benefits arrise rather than just open up the definition to include unintended realationships that could allow for dishonest advantages to be taken of it.
Those dishonest "marriages" already exist, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Having a system in place that allows only straight people to get married restricts the rights of non-straight people. We could grant those rights to non-straight people without opening up the marriage laws for exploitation.
Gosh, we can do this all day. Actually, I'm about out of time for today.
It's strange that you would define equal treatment of all citizens as liberal. I'm calling it liberal because the method is failing to consider some of the negetive consequesnces that could arrise.
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Yes, I just think it should be called something else and leave "marriage" out of it. Of course, as has been pointed out to you in the past, separate-but-equal institutions were aptly called out as bullshit more than fifty-two years ago.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
We could grant those rights to non-straight people without opening up the marriage laws for exploitation.
The laws are already open for exploitation.
quote:
I'm calling it liberal because the method is failing to consider some of the negetive consequesnces that could arrise.
1) Can you explain how it is "liberal" to propose a law or policy that "fails to consider potential negative consequences"? Do you really believe that conservatives have never "failed to consider potential negative consequences", or do not do so just as much or more than liberals? 2) What negative consequences?
|
™ Version 4.2