State amendments regarding gay marriage

We are in disagreement on terms then. Uhmmmmm... that's a pretty silly statement. What on earth is a "criminal" lifestyle?Governments make laws prohibiting certain activities. When they step beyond that to address what might lead one to certain activities, then they are stepping OVER most civil rights. Thus there is no criminalizing a lifestyle which might happen to include crime.If by living a criminal lifestyle you mean the breaking of any laws, then your argument (or definition) is redundant. Oh I wish you hadn't done that. I even checked the dictionary first. The prime definition is one of majority rule.Clearly democracies come in all shapes and sizes. Indeed so do REPUBLICS. We are not a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC which uses democratic processes (sometimes only vaguely democratic) to choose our representatives and in a few local cases actual legislation.Thus we are a democratic republic.The power of the legislators derives from the people, but the power of the government is in the hands of the legislators. In turn, they have been bound from affecting some parts of the people's lives. So a trade in power, through the Constitution.Sorry to be a stickler for this, but a Chicago newsman was always making a point of this no matter his guest. If they used Democracy incorrectly he would remind them.And in a proper democracy, it is majority wins. Otherwise it is a limited democracy. That is the power of the people is limited in some way. That is essentially what I am saying. It CREATES a blanket prohibition against the general policies you have mentioned.You have to define influencing people to do or not do what, before I can tell you what part of the BoR covers it. I'm sorry, I did not understand this statement.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You know, breaking laws, taking people's stuff, etc.I'm not at all clear what a "lifestyle", is, exactly, but surely one could make a lifestyle out of brigandry? You wish I hadn't done that!? You started it, asshole. I'm not the one who tried to say that "democracy literally means 'majority rule'", which I proved is patently false. Well, maybe you're using a different dictionary, but Mirriam-Webster says:

quote:

---

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

---

Get that? The first definition is "the people rule" (which I said it was), especially (not only) majority rule, which I said.Don't misrepresent the dictionary, Holmes. Democracy doesn't literally mean "majority rule", it literally means "the people rule."[/i] That's most often associated with majority rule - I haven't said that it wasn't - but that's by no means the literal definition of "democracy." Maybe you should have looked up "literally" while you were there. Which, by definition, is a kind of democracy, as well as a kind of republic. Where? I suppose you could argue that the 9th and 10th Amendments mean that citizens have literally all possible rights, which is what you would need to characterize the Bill of Rights as a blanket prohibition.That's not an interpretation that I believe carries a lot of weight. The 9th and 10th Amendments say we have more rights, not all rights.Again, you're saying that the Bill of Rights is a blanket prohibition against governments instituting social policy; I'm asking you where in the Bill that language is found. Driving electric cars. You were trying to draw a false distinction between what people think about stuff and things that people do. Since thinking is doing, "things that people do" (which I referred to as "social policy") includes "what people think about stuff."

Your reply was filled with anger toward me. I have already said I am not taking an angry tone with you, so I am unsure where all this animosity is coming from. Breaking laws makes you eligible for prosecution for each law broken. You don't get an additional charge for enjoying doing so.Again, if you mean by "criminal lifestyle", that you "break laws" then your term is redundant. Obviously laws that prosecute crimes are prosecuting those that commit such crimes. That was a joke. You did not. I use the exact same dictionary, and so definition. Democracy in its Greek origins (its etymology) was from people ruling themselves, which we are not. When you get to our current usage it is still essentially the same thing, and especially majority rule.I have already admitted there are other forms of democracies, so yeah some are majority rule some are not. But then (and I am pretty sure I have already said this) you are using a very broad definition of democracy. A strict democracy is majority rule. I am sorry to be the messenger, but that is true. The rest would be limited (or regulated) forms of democracies. That is why the dictionary definition says ESPECIALLY majority rule.I don't believe we need a huge to do about this. I am simply getting the terms specific to what we are talking about. I am not impressed that you pretend a comma and the word "especially" somehow makes the second half of a sentence not part of the first half.Literally, the prime definition (and I'm glad to see we are using the same dictionary) is a government by the people, especially majority rule.If you mean something other than majority rule, you'll have to say you are choosing a minor form of democracy, or a broader term.In the case of the US, for most legislation, the Legislators use the strict or prime definition of democratic voting, which is majority rule. Some types of legislation require even greater majorities than strict majority. And some types of legislation are barred no matter the amount of agreement. We are not a form of democracy, we are a form of republic. Not IS, CREATES. The BoR is a list of different kinds of rights. Together, by necessity, they CREATE a prohibition against laws for purely social "decoration" or "feel-goodness". Our government is NOT supposed to tell people how it is best to live.You're question makes no sense, or is unanswerable, as stated. I was not trying to give you a hard time. This is a concrete example so I can deal with it. If for some reason members of the gov't felt Gaia the earth mother would like us to drive electric cars, or such a thing would line the pockets of her priestesses, and so they made legislation forcing everyone to drive electric cars, then that would violate the 1st amendment.It may also violate the 9th amendment, as a right to choose one's mode of transportation, or build alternate forms of transportation.But since (and I have already said this) it is based on practical concerns regarding the natural limits and use of a public resource, there is no problem with encouraging (or making more obtainable) technology impacting that resource.It is not about changing beliefs or enhancing any moral group's social standing.Let's look at marriage. By the way that it is being treated (encouraging a Judeo-Xian model of marriage, as well as punishing those... by restricting rights... to those who do not choose marriage at all), it is violating the 1st amendment, as well as possibly the 9th amendment.I really didn't have much of a problem that they were created along Judeo-Xian models because I'm sure that was very practical. It has been the consistent disenfranchisement of those who do not follow that model, as well as trying to create incentives to "give in" to that model, which crosses the line. I think there was a miscommunication because I wasn't trying to do that at all.But I will say that I DO believe there is a large distinction between what people think and what they do. Laws against murder are different than laws against thinking about murder.Unless you are trying to say that by making something illegal we are trying to get people to think differently about something? I won't deny that, but that does not open the door IMO to allowing legislation whose only real goal is to do that.I do hope I got your tone wrong, because I'm not sure why the language has gotten more intense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, then I misundertood again. It really came off like you were being an asshole; I'm sorry I called you one when you weren't. Don't you, though? Isn't the appearance of repentance/unrepentance one of the things judges look for in sentencing? Yes. I'm using a definition sufficiently broad as to encompass democracy in all its forms. I didn't say it wasn't a part, as I've repeatedly told you; but being a part is not the same as being the whole thing, as you've repeatedly stated. But if someone voted for that law because they felt that the Bible teaches them to be good stewards of the Earth, is the law then a violation of the First Amendment? I dunno. I really felt like you were taking a very adversarial tone in your last post. I'm sorry I called you names but it really rubbed me the wrong way. That's my bad, I guess.It may be possible that it's just not going to be possible for us to communicate effectively. Which is weird because I've always thought we believed in mostly the same stuff.

Well I may be, but not for that... heheheh. Uhhhhh... that is something a bit different. The person is only penalized for the crime commited and not for their lifestyle per se. When a judge has flexibility for sentencing, then it is usual to try and figure out what is the most appropriate for the case. I don't think it's unusual to use likelihood of reoffense to make that judgement. Okay, but it leads to confusion for ME when we are talking mostly about a specific government, and the legislative processes within it. This is not an accurate assessment of my position. I have also repeatedly said that there are different types of democracies, the question comes down to what kind is the default democracy. The default or primary kind is majority rules. That is what the "especially" adds to the primary definition of democracy.It does not make you wrong, and as is now clear you were meaning to use the most broad definition... but it shows why a person can be confused as to what you are discussing, and that person is correct in saying literally (in our modern language) democracy means majority rule by the people. That is the favored definition, not exclusive, favored.I was also keeping strict because we were talking about a specific government which uses that favored definition. The intention of the voter is pretty much irrelevant. If that is what the law was founded on, meaning there was no practical reality regarding that resource, just the "good steward" motto and a "prius commercial says it will help" then the law is no good.I am personally disappointed with the SC's current litmus test for when debate and so decisions on any law are reasonable or not vs. pure social engineering based on feel good notions. They are pretty lax and so you end up with a few getting through, usually when the main arguments come down to intent of the voters and formulaters of a law. I really have no idea why it seemed that way, but I really want to put your mind at ease on this. I am not trying to write any of this with a condescending tone, or with any mean spirit. Well whether we believe in the same thing or not, shouldn't stop us from communicating effectively. In the end we can agree to disagree if we are looking at the same facts and simply come to different and reasonable conclusions about them.Not to be insulting, but it does seem (and has seemed since the beginning) that you've been extra edgy about your position on this. And like maybe this edginess is making you not want to look at all the facts. Everyone does seem to have a sore spot somewhere, maybe this is yours? I dunno.I'd hope we can at least get the facts down straight, before deciding whether we agree or not. IMO it would be beneficial if you read some of the discussions on this debate at the SC and by the FFs. Reading THEM, more than my posts, may make you change your position.One great one was Scalia's rant on the Texas sodomy case. He discusses (and that is being favorable) that activist judges are pushing this country to how I discussed the BoR acts against the state. He says if this happens, all hell will break loose... especially gays, incest lovers, pedophiles, and you get the picture.His argument is that the state IS able to make social policy for "greater ends" and so CAN regulate the lives of homosexuals, and indeed NEEDS the green light for social policy making in order to do so. Without that ability: chaos... or orgies anyway.And he is RIGHT. And that is the dilemma. If one green light is given then all minorities may be oppressed, if a red light is given then many "unwanted" minorities will be freed. Old history and recent history are moving toward the "free" interpretation.Whatever happens, IMO it is pretty clear what the framers meant. And I will be trying to dig up some nice clear quotes and examples of handling similar legislation.Please don't take my few critical comments too strongly. Maybe its my pigheadedness on this issue which is making you appear edgy to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I doubt it. I seriously don't care that much.I am married, as I'm sure I've mentioned, and I like the arrangement so much that I guess I take umbrage at the suggestion that the paltry rights I gained (I'm not even sure what those are; not much about my life has changed) came somehow at such a cost to others that the institution I've entered into must be eliminated. That simply doesn't seem to be the case - nothing about what my wife and I have entered into has cost anybody anything, except for her parents who paid for the wedding.Marriage, as we allow it to be entered into these days, is unfair to gay people.But to rectify that by saying no one should marry doesn't seem right, either. It's like trying to make everybody equal by sandbagging those who excel; like in that Ray Bradbury short story. (Was it Bradbury? The one where they shoot a ballet dancer for the crime of taking off the sandbags that keep her from jumping higher than the average person? The one where a guy has to wear earphones that keep him from concentrating, so that he's not any smarter than the average person?)Marriage is good, and for the large part, it works out great for people who enter into it with maturity. I don't see what's so bad about it that we need to get rid of government recognition of it; let's be honest, that would be the decline of marriage, as it has been in other countries.

I think you've made a mistake with regard to my position. Granting people rights... especially as this is just a voluntary contract of obligation... is not an issue to me.Granting them inequitably in order to prop up a social or religious paradigm is a problem to me... and to the Constitution.I am not arguing that it MUST be eliminated. I do believe that's an option (and if the rights you get are so meager what difference does it make whether the gov't gets out or not?), but there are others. I outlined some to Lam. No it is much much more than that. Like I said, I understood full well why they were originally created as they were. I doubt there was anyone even conceiving of highly alternative relationships back then. The most were probably the mormons and they did get Unconstitutionally deprived.Society, and relationships in general, has changed since marriage laws were first put on the books. When people bring this to gov't attention, there shouldn't be a problem. But there is.I have a significant relationship, but I am barred from having it acknowledged unless I go through a Judeo-Xian inspired social ceremony in order to legitimate my sexual life with that partner. It is archaic to me and I shouldn't have to be forced to oblige.YOUR marriage is not a problem to me. The gov't forcing me to have your kind of relationship (i.e. marriage), before it grants me similar rights is a problem to me.In my case it is very bad, because my partner is from outside the US. So then I ran into the very thing you said SHOULDN'T be allowed. There is some irony in this as I am not saying you shouldn't be married, but you were arguing that there was no problem with my not being able to live with my gf because we wouldn't. This example kind of makes it clear were marriage (as it is being treated) is oppressive.Again, concerns of financial responsibility and numbers of people one can "sponsor" and well anything under the sun, can be treated with general rules for any individual, divorced from specific social allegiances. Can't remember if that was Bradbury, but it sure sounds like Bradbury. I agree that marriage doesn't HAVE to be eliminated. Although again I am curious if you feel that there are no real rights afforded to you, why you would care if the gov't handled your marriage or not?But let's say anti-marriage forces gain power. Would you have a problem with just civil unions? Would there be a distinction for you?I want to address the analogy you gave above. While I do agree that it wouldn't be RIGHT to simply throw away marriage if other posibilities are workable, I don't see how it is unfair. You are saying it would be the equivalent of sandbagging a person who could jump high? I find that a curious analogy. I have a relationship I feel is equal to yours, it seems more like I am the one that got sandbagged because I was able to have it without marriage legitimizing it.If anything the proper analogy is that people who can move beyond the norm (which are alternative relationships) are getting sandbagged to meet the norm. Or perhaps conversely, those who prove they can be like most people, can have the sandbags removed.Maybe a better analogy is 1984. Those that stick out as being different get hammered, and those who do what is expected are allowed to move on. It is not just a policy of making people EQUAL, marriage policy as it stands today is a policy of making every relationship (and so the people in that relationship) IDENTICAL.I find that very scary, and as I have already mentioned I have already had MY relationship undercut. As far as I can tell marriage is neutral, not good. Or rather it is subjectively good. Some like it some don't, and whether you get in one or not does not really matter to the actual relationship itself. If you like it then that's great and government shouldn't PREVENT you from doing so.That said, I am unsure why it is necessary for a gov't to demand every relationship follow your model or NOT get recognized.I am also unsure what your fear is regarding the decline of marriage? Is that supposed to be worrying or something? I think it is important for parents to raise children together, but it doesn't seem marriage makes a real difference on a couple's ability to do so (except to the extent they lack rights for not following the Judeo-Xian model).Why is the "decline" of marriage, not the same thing as the "decline" of going to church, or the "decline" of polytheism, or the "decline" of people eating red meat... a statistic of changing culture, not for the worse or better?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The state should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. If you and your significant other want to share benefits, by all means consult an attorny and draw up the necessary paperwork. Don't use my money to try to validate your beliefs. As would the collorary of your deciding to be married. You would deserve no benefits by your own logic.This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:47 AM

---

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

So, no problem with gay marriage. And to take this a step further, the state should have nothing to do with these partnerships past the legal sense.

---

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

The constitution doesn't say the government can't get everyone to paint their bodies blue. There was a time when people used the same argument for same race marriages.This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 05:03 AM

---

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

Sometimes it is very difficult to change what should never have been done. Government tends to seep into all aspects of our lives until we choke and vomit it out.

I don't care how you charactarize our government; democratic, republican, or some other combination. Look at the constitution and you'll see what it is. Its writers were genuises who realized that rulers would always try to have it their way. The constitution is designed in such a way that only something monumentally important would get done. Three equal but separate branches, uninumerated powers to the states, limited powers to our representatives. Our government isn't designed to do much of anything. That power is left to the people, but the people are giving it away. We don't want it anymore, decide for us. You want the government to decide how you live? Then let them pass laws until that web is so dense you have no life of your own to live.This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 05:57 AM

---

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

It makes my relationship with mym wife non-ambiguous. If we weren't married, but I described her as a "life partner" or "my girlfriend" or whatever, people would wonder why we weren't married. They'd wonder what I meant by "life partner", because if I meant something akin to "wife", why wouldn't I have married her and said that?Marriage, to some degree, is a priveleged state. The ring on my finger is like a Ring of Power - "grant my wife what rights you would grant me", it says, and such is its power that most people comply.I don't think it would carry the same weight without the government backing it; just like money wouldn't have the same value if we minted it in our living rooms. But what stops you from marriage? You don't have to do it in a church; it doesn't change any aspect of your relationship with her except for how you two are viewed by society.From what you say, it sounds like you are unhappy with how the two of you are viewed; the steps to correct that are simple and easy. Takes a week in most states (I don't know what it's like overseas). To me it doesn't seem like you're sandbagged at all; you just don't want to jump. For reasons that I'm sure seem very valid to the both of you, of course. I disagree. There's nothing in my marriage license that tells me what I have to do in my marriage. There's nothing that compels me to emotional or sexual fidelity. Hell there's nothing that even compels me to live with my wife, or just with her.I can literally have any relationship I choose. It's just that I gained a title called "husband" and she gained a title called "wife", and those words have meaning to other people. That doesn't mean that they need to have the same meaning to her and I. I don't know if it is, or not. But it's something we should look at, and be aware of. Even if it isn't good or bad, we should at least know that it's happening.

Now start from there. The government is putting weight behind a judeo-xian social construct. I realize you may not be that religious, and may practice your marriage somewhat differently than most Judeo-xians, but that does not change the fact that marriage as it is currently codified is based solely on the Judeo-Xian model.With this in mind you feel that the government should give power to the relationship YOU want to live, otherwise it is less worthwhile. Isn't that the same for everyone else who have strong nonJudeo-Xian beliefs and want their own form of relationships recognized by (given the weight of) government?Well in my case its not exactly given the social weight, but the legal rights (legal weight) available to strictly Judeo-Xian modelled relationships. I know you didn't mean it, but the above was quite an insensitive statement. You just got done saying that you want the legitimacy of government for your relationship, and apparently you are fine with a Judeo-Xian model. We ARE NOT. It's like telling us to go convert to another religion because that will make it easier for us, while saying you should have what you want (not be bothered with having to have laws change to be more fair).What IS easier, is to have our form of relationship recognized, and NOT discriminated against. This can be done using alternate union contracts, as well as just plain removing extras given to only Judeo-Xian modelled relationships. When we want a third or fourth person in our relationship, please tell us how we can do this under the Judeo-Xian model of 1-1 only?As it stands, the government was unwilling to recognize our form of relationship and so I could not sponsor her unless we complied with the Judeo-Xian model. That makes us sandbagged as far as I can tell.In fact there is definite discrimination for those with alternative relationships. I have been denied housing for not being married to a gf. There are also some jobs which will not hire unless a person is married.Thus even if I didn't care about getting some of the rights you get, the gov't encourages discrimination against those who do not. Actually there is. You must only have one spouse. You may only get married to another, once your current partner is dead or divorced. There will be NO recognition of that kind of relationship.And in contrast to your claims that you are NOT compelled to sexual fidelity, there are many laws which say otherwise. Adultery IS a crime, and even if it doesn't get enforced much on the streets it can (and DOES) get one thrown out of military service, as well as businesses, and housing where such crimes are considered important.And if you do things like not live with your wife or give her emotional, or sexual fidelity that is grounds for divorce. Indeed some states do not even have no fault divorce and so you have to claim these Judeo-Xian modelled reasons for divorce.If you have ever seen the bad stuff which comes from a no-fault divorce pushed through a state court with a no no-fault policy... ugh. You can generally live as you want, but there are laws and regulations against living beyond the Judeo-Xian model. And they CAN come back to haunt you.I might add that being forced to take on names such as husband and wife, especially with the historic and religious connotations they have, can be insulting enough. That is sooooo archaic (as well as arbitrary) to me and my gf.What is wrong with me just having my gf, and being able to sponsor her to live with me, and when we have kids they are recognized as our kids? Well I do agree with that. I just don't see it as meaning anything beyond "hm. that's interesting."

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't believe that marriage is strictly Judeo-Christian. Surely we see pair-bonding in other cultures as well?Remember how I was using as broad a definition of marriage as possible? I realize that that's a broader definition than the government uses, but that's reason to change the gov't definition, not throw it out altogether. Not to pry, but what part of your relationship would be incompatible with having a marriage license?The fact that some Jews came up with the idea in the first place? I don't get it. As I said, no part of your marriage needs to be influenced by religion. Civil marriage is a pair-bonding agreement. Ok, well, currently all you have to do to get your relationship recognized by the American government is go fill out some paperwork at your courthouse. I don't know if you've seen a marriage license or not, but I don't recall mine (in the state of Minnesota) giving any mention of God or Christianity or any other religious concept.It doesn't even call me "groom" or "husband". It says "spouse 1" and "spouse 2."I don't see where all this Christian stuff is supposed to be, I guess. You can add all the people you like.It's just that you only get one spouse. Maybe we should change that, but marriage doesn't prevent you from adding more people to your relationship; just to your marriage.Maybe we ought to change that, though. ?!I believe you, but I can't imagine what those jobs are. Could you elaborate? Not because I don't believe your claim; it's just that I've never heard of such a thing. We should certainly do away with those. But those are tangental to marriage. Well, nobody "forces" me to take on those names, any more than I'm "forced" to take on a name like "human" or "male" or "adult". "Husband" is simply what I am now.I mean, honestly, if you want to quibble about being "forced" to take on a name, well, that's just too silly to argue with.