·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...
Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...Follow
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.
That's a strawman though. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not intended to be "separate but equal". They're intended to be two separate legal statuses for two different types of couples, and *should* be unequal.
That's the point... Do you get that the whole "separate but equal" thing stemmed from the segregated schools in the south, because that was what was claimed and later found out to be completely untrue?
Yes. But that's because they were supposed to be equal in the first place. It was the entire concept behind segregated public services. No one (outside of pro-gay marriage advocates and the occasional idiot conservative who thinks he's compromising by using the same wrong language) is arguing that domestic partnerships are or were intended to be "equal" to marriage in every way. Those statuses were specifically created to be a legally recognized status for couples who could not procreate, but wanted to have a state defined set of contracts and benefits to apply to them. The base assumption that the make up of the couples and therefore the benefits the applicable status would be different has been there from the beginning. Why bother creating a different status in the first place if it wasn't intended to be... different?
Quote:
The "colored" schools had significantly lower quality books, buildings, and resources in general than the white schools did. That was the primary reason people pushed to desegregate schools, because black students were at an extreme disadvantage and a lot of people thought that was wrong.
Yes. Again though, that's because the argument for creating segregation in the first place was that the result would be equal. As long as they were equal, segregation was ruled to be constitutional. I'm not aware of any constitutional argument that's been made regarding restricting gay couples from qualifying for the marriage status that is based on the idea that civil unions are legally equal. The argument has been quite different from the strawman that most people hear about.
The most direct case (so far, obviously there are new ones winding their way through) is Baker v. Nelson. Key arguments in this case directly address most of the commonly flung around assumptions, which is why it's always surprising to me that those flinging them appear to be completely unaware that those questions have already been answered on a legal level, choosing instead to pretend that the only answer is "we hate gays, so nyah!".
Quote:
[2] 2. Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment./2/
These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court
These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court
and
Quote:
The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
It's amusing how often Skinner is quoted from and the word's "and procreation" are just lifted out of the quote.
Oh. And here's the answer to all those who say "But what about heterosexual couples who can't or wont procreate"? Again, they ask the question as though it has not already been answered. But it has:
Quote:
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And here's the answer to the whole "It's just like racial discrimination" argument:
Quote:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
Again, it's interesting how often these arguments are parroted by gay marriage advocates as though there aren't already answers to the questions. And no matter how many times this is pointed out to them, they will "forget" the answer and repeat the question the next time the issue comes up. It's funny and frustrating all at the same time.
Quote:
Those of us who support gay marriage do so because we don't agree that civil unions are enough, specifically because they DON'T offer the same protections and rights that marriage does.
I'm sure you believe this, mostly because you've been told this over and over and therefore believe it to be true. But just for fun, could you list exactly which protections and rights you believe gay people are being denied by not being able to marry? It's easy to say what you said, but much harder to back it up.
Quote:
Civil unions are better than nothing, but they're just today's version of the "separate but equal" garbage that existed during the civil rights movement.
No. They're completely different. In all honesty, they probably shouldn't have been created either, since all they've really accomplished is to create the very argument you're making right now. But that's like a whole topic by itself.
Edited, May 10th 2012 4:26pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Here's a graph showing public opinion on SSM over time. 2011 is the first time you start seeing majorities favoring it but the trend is an unmistakable upward climb in approval. Credit where due, I'm almost certain Nate Silver compiled that but I didn't feel like poking around the NYT site with their limited access these days.
So, no, I don't see where 40 states with amended constitutions banning SSM from 1996-2012 shows that all these people had strong thought-out arguments about government spending or benefits or whatever. Or are we saying that people have been shedding these arguments in record numbers? Now everyone either has these arguments or else approves of SSM and there's no one left who just hates gay people for being gay? Of course not. It's a process and (barring a groundbreaking SCotUS decision) it'll be a lengthy process of getting state legislations willing to tackle repeals of these amendments and I wouldn't consider NC to be a bellwether of how it's going to go.
And, with that said, I'm much more interested in discussing this in regards to the election if I'm going to discuss it at all. Another boring-*** SSM debate is something I'd rather sit out.
So, no, I don't see where 40 states with amended constitutions banning SSM from 1996-2012 shows that all these people had strong thought-out arguments about government spending or benefits or whatever. Or are we saying that people have been shedding these arguments in record numbers? Now everyone either has these arguments or else approves of SSM and there's no one left who just hates gay people for being gay? Of course not. It's a process and (barring a groundbreaking SCotUS decision) it'll be a lengthy process of getting state legislations willing to tackle repeals of these amendments and I wouldn't consider NC to be a bellwether of how it's going to go.
And, with that said, I'm much more interested in discussing this in regards to the election if I'm going to discuss it at all. Another boring-*** SSM debate is something I'd rather sit out.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
And then what? Will your life feel complete or something? I'm honestly curious what people think will happen once they achieve those sorts of social goals. Do you stop and be happy? Or move on to the next thing? Ever consider that it's not really the goal, but the act of fighting for one that defines these things? In other words, you're being used.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
So, no, I don't see where 40 states with amended constitutions banning SSM from 1996-2012 shows that all these people had strong thought-out arguments about government spending or benefits or whatever.
When opinion polls so clearly don't match actual vote outcomes, most sane people would assume that those polls aren't telling us the whole story and perhaps not rely on them so much. You don't actually think "I'm right because a poll says a bunch of other people agree with me" is a good argument, do you?
Quote:
And, with that said, I'm much more interested in discussing this in regards to the election if I'm going to discuss it at all. Another boring-*** SSM debate is something I'd rather sit out.
Sure. I think Obama is the victim of the liberal bubble he's surrounded himself with on this one. He lives in a world where if you just "do the right thing" (with "right thing" being defined by a set of far far left political positions), the people will love you and flock to support you! I'm sure someone (or several someone's) repeatedly told him that if he'd just say he was for gay marriage, it would be like a dam breaking and everyone would follow.
I think there's a lot of self delusion going on, people drinking their own punch, believing their own BS, etc.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Um, no I'm not. Gay marriage is just the first step in my agenda. 
gbaji wrote:
When opinion polls so clearly don't match actual vote outcomes, most sane people would assume that those polls aren't telling us the whole story...
Sure. They don't necessarily reflect opinions within the state itself or GOTV efforts or the effects of contested ballots or any number of things. Or I guess we can go with your way of thinking and assume that every one of those little colored dots is lying. Whichever.
Quote:
Sure. I think Obama is the victim of the liberal bubble he's surrounded himself with on this one. He lives in a world where if you just "do the right thing" (with "right thing" being defined by a set of far far left political positions), the people will love you and flock to support you! I'm sure someone (or several someone's) repeatedly told him that if he'd just say he was for gay marriage, it would be like a dam breaking and everyone would follow.
Huh. That's... interesting. It's not really supported by anything I've seen or heard on the topic in the last few days but... well, you're certainly welcome to your own opinion.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
You don't actually think "I'm right because a poll says a bunch of other people agree with me" is a good argument, do you?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When opinion polls so clearly don't match actual vote outcomes, most sane people would assume that those polls aren't telling us the whole story...
Sure. They don't necessarily reflect opinions within the state itself or GOTV efforts or the effects of contested ballots or any number of things. Or I guess we can go with your way of thinking and assume that every one of those little colored dots is lying. Whichever.
People are more likely to say what they think others want to hear when answering an opinion poll than when voting Joph. Or do you think people "lie" when they vote? There's a huge discrepancy between what opinion polls say people think about this issue, and what people actually support when they actually go and vote. Ignoring that, or just assuming that the polls are right and the votes are somehow wrong, just seems like burying your head in the sand.
It's not that simple.
Quote:
Huh. That's... interesting. It's not really supported by anything I've seen or heard on the topic in the last few days but... well, you're certainly welcome to your own opinion.
So I'm not parroting anyone? Yay! I'm my own man. Joph said so.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You don't actually think "I'm right because a poll says a bunch of other people agree with me" is a good argument, do you?
My point in general is that the polling data is not the be-all and end-all of the issue. IMO, you're mostly measuring increased awareness of the issue (cause it's been front and center a lot more in the past decade than in the past) and not so much people actually changing their minds about anything.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
People are more likely to say what they think others want to hear when answering an opinion poll than when voting Joph.
[...]
It's not that simple.
[...]
It's not that simple.
I hope that's the irony burning or else I'm going to need a cream. Look, I'm not going to waste time tonight trying to educate you about elections or polling or whatever. Believe however you'd like.
Quote:
So I'm not parroting anyone? Yay! I'm my own man. Joph said so. 
You certainly could be. I could always check the Freepers and let you know
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I hope that's the irony burning or else I'm going to need a cream. Look, I'm not going to waste time tonight trying to educate you about elections or polling or whatever. Believe however you'd like.
Um... Ok. I can see how arguing an untenable position would be a waste of your time, so we can just assume that I'm right and you're wrong then? Great!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sure, you can assume that. You mean you didn't before?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
And then what? Will your life feel complete or something? I'm honestly curious what people think will happen once they achieve those sorts of social goals. Do you stop and be happy? Or move on to the next thing? Ever consider that it's not really the goal, but the act of fighting for one that defines these things? In other words, you're being used.
I don't even...
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
And then what? Will your life feel complete or something? I'm honestly curious what people think will happen once they achieve those sorts of social goals. Do you stop and be happy? Or move on to the next thing? Ever consider that it's not really the goal, but the act of fighting for one that defines these things? In other words, you're being used.
Well, that might be the stupidest thing you've said this year.
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?
Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.
Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
I don't know about the war part, but I am definitely in favor of splitting up the country into regions and letting each region essentially become its own country. We can still do free trade between regions, and ease of immigration/emigration and tourism, etc. But each region should have its own government and laws. I think most people in the US would be a lot happier in that sort of situation.
...aaaaaaaaaaaaand this is why a lot of people still favour "State's Rights".
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
Edited, May 10th 2012 10:31pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yup. I know in Oregon our measure passed back in 2004. Since then, we've legalized civil unions. To quote Dylan, "times they are a'changing." It might take another 10 or 20 years, but I have no doubt that sometime within my lifetime, gay marriage will be legal in this country.
Edited, May 10th 2012 10:31pm by lolgaxe
That really is the only conclusion I can draw from this.
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
IcookPizza wrote:
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Aripyanfar wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?
Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.
Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
I don't know about the war part, but I am definitely in favor of splitting up the country into regions and letting each region essentially become its own country. We can still do free trade between regions, and ease of immigration/emigration and tourism, etc. But each region should have its own government and laws. I think most people in the US would be a lot happier in that sort of situation.
...aaaaaaaaaaaaand this is why a lot of people still favour "State's Rights".
It's like saying Europe should just be one country yet keep all its individual laws.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
as for gbaji
Quote:
And then what? Will your life feel complete or something? I'm honestly curious what people think will happen once they achieve those sorts of social goals.
And then teenage boys might eventually stop committing suicide because their sexual orientation is socially unacceptable, and they have to choose between having someone they are in love with, or having their family, friends, school and workmates.
God you are such a selfish fuck.
Edited, May 11th 2012 4:44am by Aripyanfar
Debalic wrote:
It's like saying Europe should just be one country yet keep all its individual laws.
I was actually thinking of something sort of like the EU, but I forgot to mention it in my post. Only, doesn't the EU decide on resolutions, that every country must abide? I don't overly care for that idea. The entire purpose of splitting up the country into several regional countries, is so we don't have the same laws since different areas of the country tend to have different opinions and cultures. So that would pretty much defeat the purpose.
I'm not opposed to state's rights, generally...just not in this case. There are too many federal level benefits/consequences to let it remain a state's rights issue...not only taxes but also immigration.
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Can't we just skip to the November rhetoric already?
*** Hag vs Homophobe: who you gonna' choose?!!
*** Hag vs Homophobe: who you gonna' choose?!!
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Recent Visitors: 374
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (374)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC