Prop 8, The Play

[california boy]

Yes, I'm sure that is the flip side. To be perfectly blunt with you, in return: prior to the NY Legislation's legalization of full marriage equality, charges were filed in 2004 against ministers from my own Faith (Unitarian Universalism) in NY for marrying same-sex couples. From The Washington Post and The Boston Globe:

Were the same-sex couples able to "call" their marriage whatever they wished? Allegedly, yes... However, the government's stance created an unequal protection of some religions' martial practices, while forbidding--and even attempting to prosecute--other religions' marital practices. The same problem that occured when the U.S. unjustly prosecuted early LDS leaders and congregants for their own private, "religious" plural marriages.

The historical account of the clashes of LDS polygamy with US governments, and the article above, illustrate the complexities of the situation when some religions' version of "marriage" is civilly permitted/recognized, while other religions' versions of marriage are prohibited by law (or, to use your term, Log, "by the force of arms.")

The good news, of course, is that thankfully, the prosecution's attempts were unsuccessful. I believe that this incident is one reason that the NY legislature acted judiciously and, as of this past year, now recognizes and supports the religious liberties of all religions and clergy to either marry or abstain from marrying same-sex couples according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Daniel2

It is interesting to me that the Mormon church was not among the other churches to support the two minsiters to marry who they wish according to their religious beliefs. There was a time when the Mormons needed such support from other churches and got none. I guess they have no right to claim persecution from the government about their polygamist beliefs. After all, the government was only following the law in both cases no matter how wrong those laws were.

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

The Church has always defined marriage as between men and women. What the early Saints wanted was to be left alone to practice marrying men to women.

[Log]

Were the same-sex couples able to "call" their marriage whatever they wished? Allegedly, yes...

Multiple paragraphs and many words, including a reference to an utterly irrelevant failed prosecution to obfuscate this admission that I am, in fact, correct that there is no equivalent flipside to your seeking to compel all, by force of arms, to recognize that homosexualists can be, or are, "married."

[Jaybear]

Because, no matter what the law, the only way government can enforce compliance is by using force, and, ultimately, any governmental force is lethal. If one resists long enough, an overdue book fine at the library is a death sentence.

That is a bizzare belief.

Not all laws require affirmative compliance.

Legalizing gay marriage won't mean, for example, that you will be forced, upon threat death to marry another man.

Similarly, Prop 8 did not force gays to do something. It simply prevented a gay couple from securing a state issued married license.

[LeSellers]

That is a bizzare belief.

For you, perhaps, but it was the belief of the Founders in USmerica, and of most people who study the matter.

On what, then, does government base its ability to enforce a law?

Government is like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.

Not all laws require affirmative compliance.

Legalizing gay marriage won't mean, for example, that you will be forced, upon threat death to marry another man.

Similarly, Prop 8 did not force gays to do something. It simply prevented a gay couple from securing a state issued married license.

They should be grateful for that. A government-issued marriage license is a horrid thing. It make the state the third partner in the relationship and by far the most powerful.

The proposals to force same-sex "marriage" down the throats of USmerica do not require that anyone marry at all, and no law has ever done that (unless, in the past, it forced two people living together in the manner of husband and wife to marry to "regularize" their relationship). Nowadays, the law is quite happy to have people shack up and raise children, although most often, it's the government who raises them, through its schools and Aid to "Families" with (we made'em) Dependent) Children.

What th ese laws will do is force us to "accept" (not merely "tolerate") same-sex couples as if they were "married", even though it's just not possible, by any current, rigorous definition of the word.

It is not inconceivable, irrespective of what supporters of this travesty may claim (today) that in the future, the state will insist on churches performing same-sex "marriages" in order to be recognized as legitimate churches. It happened in the past with Plural Marriage, the US government essentially destroyed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, closed down Temples, confiscated welfare and other funds and resources (like the Bishop's Storehouse), and so on. If they did it in the past, what would stay their hands in the future?

And, if californiaboy is to be believed, they don't want the word, anyway. All they want is equal treatment, even though, when offered "Civil Unions" or "Civil Partnership" with all the same trappings as marriage, they refused it, saying they want the word, too.

When the XVI amendment to the USmerican Constitution was proposed, it was promised that the income tax rate would never rise above 3%, and that only the top 1% of incomes would be hit. No future legislature is bound by the current one, so even if they were to write "protections" into the law foisting it on us, we have no protection from some "progressive" "mind" in a few years or decades coming along and expanding the law to include all we supporters of traditional marriage and family now fear. And, given that history of reneging on promises, I can reasonably well say, "It will happen!"

With government, there is one thing we can depend on: it will grow. That growth always results in individuals having fewer freedoms over time.

Lehi

[KevinG]

... growth always results in individuals having fewer freedoms over time.

Lehi

A principle clearly illustrated by my waist size and my ability to move freely in my jeans.

[california boy]

For you, perhaps, but it was the belief of the Founders in USmerica, and of most people who study the matter. On what, then, does government base its ability to enforce a law? They should be grateful for that. A government-issued marriage license is a horrid thing. It make the state the third partner in the relationship and by far the most powerful.

I have to say you are just a bit too hysterical for me. If you don't want the government to be a part of your marriage, you can get married in a field of flowers with a person of your choosing and not register the marriage with any state authority. End of problem.

The proposals to force same-sex "marriage" down the throats of USmerica do not require that anyone marry at all, and no law has ever done that (unless, in the past, it forced two people living together in the manner of husband and wife to marry to "regularize" their relationship). Nowadays, the law is quite happy to have people shack up and raise children, although most often, it's the government who raises them, through its schools and Aid to "Families" with (we made'em) Dependent) Children. What th ese laws will do is force us to "accept" (not merely "tolerate") same-sex couples as if they were "married", even though it's just not possible, by any current, rigorous definition of the word. It is not inconceivable, irrespective of what supporters of this travesty may claim (today) that in the future, the state will insist on churches performing same-sex "marriages" in order to be recognized as legitimate churches. It happened in the past with Plural Marriage, the US government essentially destroyed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, closed down Temples, confiscated welfare and other funds and resources (like the Bishop's Storehouse), and so on. If they did it in the past, what would stay their hands in the future?

Again with the hysterics. "Force same sex marriage down the throats of USmerica???" And just how does that happen. How will the government force same sex marriage on straight americans. No one is proposing any requirement to make straight people attend any gay marriages. They won't have to suddenly dissolve their own marriages. They can continue to refer to gay people as those horrible people who are living in sin. I mean really it is this hysteric hyperbole that provide no credible discussion on gay marriage.

the state will insist on churches performing same-sex "marriages

So did the state force the Mormons to marry blacks? Did the state force Mormons to marry interracial couples? In fact, can you show me one example in the 200 year history of this country where the state forced a church to marry anyone?? This is a totally different issue than polygamy. There is a difference between not allowing a church to do want ever it wants (animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, forced sex on minors or in the case of the church allowing the practice of polygamy and forcing them to marry someone. Do you see the difference? Or do you whirl all the laws in a blender to make some mucky insensible argument to suit your agenda.

And, if californiaboy is to be believed, they don't want the word, anyway. All they want is equal treatment, even though, when offered "Civil Unions" or "Civil Partnership" with all the same trappings as marriage, they refused it, saying they want the word, too.

If you think that I implied that gays only wanted the legal benefits and not the word you are mistaken. Of course they want marriage and all that it implies. In my opinion offering civil unions to gay couples is like telling a black person he can ride the bus, he just has to sit in the back because he is not a part of the rest of the bus ridding community.

When the XVI amendment to the USmerican Constitution was proposed, it was promised that the income tax rate would never rise above 3%, and that only the top 1% of incomes would be hit. No future legislature is bound by the current one, so even if they were to write "protections" into the law foisting it on us, we have no protection from some "progressive" "mind" in a few years or decades coming along and expanding the law to include all we supporters of traditional marriage and family now fear. And, given that history of reneging on promises, I can reasonably well say, "It will happen!" With government, there is one thing we can depend on: it will grow. That growth always results in individuals having fewer freedoms over time. Lehi

You could throw this straw man argument up for each and every law passed by the government. Slippery slope arguments are made when there is no real rational for laws against equality in this government. Give a woman the right to vote and the next thing they are going to want to do is run for office. We have heard it all before.

[cdowis]

The time is past when gays and lesbians allow social shame or political pressure to relegate our relationships to a second-class legal status.

I have yet to hear the answer to the question: Is a blind person a "second=class citizen" when the state refuses to grant them a driver's license?

Perhaps you have an answer.

I have other questions relating to sister/brother, father/daughter, mother/son. Each of these pairings are second class citizens, are they not, if denied a marriage license. Your argument falls apart when you give it just a little thought.

[Daniel2]

I have yet to hear the answer to the question: Is a blind person a "second=class citizen" when the state refuses to grant them a driver's license?

Perhaps you have an answer.

I don't think that's a difficult question to answer, at all: no, a blind person isn't a "second-class citizen" when they fail a vision-test to receive a driver's license.

How do you find that analogous to the thread at hand?

I have other questions relating to sister/brother, father/daughter, mother/son. Each of these pairings are second class citizens, are they not, if denied a marriage license. Your argument falls apart when you give it just a little thought.

I wouldn't personally wouldn't assert that parent/child relationships are similarly situated to either an opposite-sex or a same-sex relationship between consenting partners. If you would like to assert that they are analogous, feel free to try to make your case.

The trial overturning Prop 8 made the case that same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples, and therefore deserving of the same civil title of marriage. Lawyers and expert witnesses on behalf of opponents of same-sex marriage were unable to articulate any sort of behavioral "test" or specific qualifiaction that straight couples are expected to pass (which would have been analogous to a "vision test," in your attempted analogy) in order to warrant recognizing their unions as "marriages" that would rationally prohibit same-sex couples from likewise qualifying. Can you think of any such "test" that couples are expected to pass, in order to qualify for a civil "marriage"...?

Daniel2

[TAO]

I don't think that's a difficult question to answer, at all: no, a blind person isn't a "second-class citizen" when they fail a vision-test to receive a driver's license.

How do you find that analogous to the thread at hand?

He finds it analogous because you were implying that taking away 'rights' makes 'second-class citizens'. He provided a counter-example, sorta =P. Not the best one though.

[Daniel2]

He finds it analogous because you were implying that taking away 'rights' makes 'second-class citizens'. He provided a counter-example, sorta =P. Not the best one though.

If that was the intent, TAO, I certainly agree with your assessment that the counter-example wasn't a very good one.

For starters, "having a driver's license" isn't and (to my knowledge) has never been considered "a right."

Secondly, as already mentioned, the numerous tests (of which "vision" is only one) to qualify for a driver's licence have no analogous "test" to qualify for a civil marriage license that is universally required of opposite-couples, but which same-sex couples would fail (all else, aside from gender, being the same).

Daniel2

[TAO]

If that was the intent, TAO, I certainly agree with your assessment that the counter-example wasn't a very good one.

For starters, "having a driver's license" isn't and (to my knowledge) has never been considered "a right."

Mmm.... this wouldn't be a good counter-argument to his statement though, because of a clause in the constitution (all rights not reserved to the federal government and the state government are reserved by the people).

If I were attacking the argument, I would simply point out the reasonableness of restricting the right to drive in the case of blind people, simply so they don't injure anybody. That would be a stronger argument, imho.

Secondly, as already mentioned, the numerous tests (of which "vision" is only one) to qualify for a driver's licence have no analogous "test" to qualify for a civil marriage license that is universally required of opposite-couples, but which same-sex couples would fail (all else, aside from gender, being the same).

Nonetheless, the point I think, isn't the test; it's the safety issue for driving. The test is just a form in which we try to get to the point indirectly. Either way, this isn't my reason for opposing gay mairrage. I wouldn't think a test would be a strong case anyways because tests can be obviously biased... as everything can be.

[california boy]

I have yet to hear the answer to the question: Is a blind person a "second=class citizen" when the state refuses to grant them a driver's license?

Perhaps you have an answer.

I have other questions relating to sister/brother, father/daughter, mother/son. Each of these pairings are second class citizens, are they not, if denied a marriage license. Your argument falls apart when you give it just a little thought.

Ok I will give you an answer to the question why blind people are not allowed to drive. Because when a blind person is behind the wheel of a moving automobile, they can injure and KILL other humans. If it was safe for blind people to drive, then i am sure the government would have no constitutional right to prevent them from driving. Kinda a duh answer don't you think.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

If the LGBT community is successful in redefining marrage. What legal reasoning would prevent polygamous marriages?

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

If the LGBT community is successful in redefining marrage. What legal reasoning would prevent polygamous marriages?

While I actually support the civil regulation of polygamous marriages, I think the case could be made that an alternate financial structure (perhaps a "sliding scale," of sorts, in terms of tax priviledges, inherentance benefits between multiple spouses, etc) would need to be in place for those that have more than one spouse, so as not to unfairly "double-dip" on benefits and equitably protect the needs of children, widows/widowers, and/or divorcees. I also believe that legalizing it would help efforts to prevent current polygamists from taking advantage of and draining the welfare system (as many of the women currently get "single mother" welfare benefits, etc).

In short--in answer to your question, I don't think there are any compelling legal reason to prevent polygamous marriages, but can think of several reasons to favor of doing so.

Do you?

My view,

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Other than having more than one Mother-in-Law?:

Not really I loved my Mother-in Law quite as much as my own mom. She was a fantastic lady, and now that she has past beyond the veil, we all miss her very much.

[frankenstein]

I have yet to hear the answer to the question: Is a blind person a "second=class citizen" when the state refuses to grant them a driver's license?

Perhaps you have an answer.

I have other questions relating to sister/brother, father/daughter, mother/son. Each of these pairings are second class citizens, are they not, if denied a marriage license. Your argument falls apart when you give it just a little thought.

And your statements here fail because you have given them no thought.

Marriage is a right

Drivers license is a priviledge

To compare the two demonstrates you know not of the subject matter.

As to the incest you try to cleverly bring also demonstrates you are not versed on the legal issues of marriage in the united statetes.

Read up on the standard of analysis judge walker used. I give you. a head start "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".

Once you understand the difference bewtween rights and privileges and judicail standards of review then an informed discussion can occur on ssm, polygamy (which is supported by the defenders of traditional marriage), one man one woman nonplural marriages

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Other than having more than one Mother-in-Law?:

Not really I loved my Mother-in Law quite as much as my own mom. She was a fantastic lady, and now that she has past beyond the veil, we all miss her very much.

Haha. Nice. I actually got along quite well with my mother-in-law during the course of my marriage. (My relationship with her since the divorce has been understandably limited, though still cordial).

It sounds like you can't think of a legal reason should prevent polygamous marriagesm either?

Well said, Frank.

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Nothing legal, but I don't find it very appealing as it does tend to limit the availability of women for younger men to marry. Sociologically speaking an unattached young male is the most dangerous of animals.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Nothing legal, but I don't find it very appealing as it does tend to limit the availability of women for younger men to marry. Sociologically speaking an unattached young male is the most dangerous of animals.

Well, hey! At least we can agree on SOMETHING: I personally don't find the idea of having mulitple wives very appealing, either!

Daniel2

[TAO]

Marriage is a right

Drivers license is a priviledge

Frank, this is an appeal to the law, it doesn't actually do any good in defending gay mairrage =P.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

I think we agree on far more than a few things.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

I think we agree on far more than a few things.

Indeed--I quite agree (the singularity of my last comment, of course, being entirely tongue-in-cheek).

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

Frank, this is an appeal to the law, it doesn't actually do any good in defending gay mairrage =P.

How so in your opinion. And the law, or rather the will of the which comports with the law is what the only legal grounds for being for or agianst against (legal grounds being what is accepted in court as legal reason)

[TAO]

How so in your opinion. And the law, or rather the will of the which comports with the law is what the only legal grounds for being for or agianst against (legal grounds being what is accepted in court as legal reason)

It is for the same reason appeal to tradition is fallacious - namely, there has been laws that have been 'wrong' in the past, just as there has been traditions that have been 'wrong' in the past.

Generally, the discussion about gay mairrage revolves around what the law 'should be', and not what the law 'is'. Because of that, appeal to the law isn't the best support. Neither is appeal to tradition, for the same reason.

Thus because laws can change, and so can court opinions, and because the discussion is about right and wrong, what the current 'law' is becomes ineffectual, as people have a desire to change it in some form or another.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you will have to reach past simply because 'it is in law', because people are willing to change laws or interpretations of law at this point in time concerning the subject =P. In other words, the laws aren't authoritative on this subject; they are subject to change.

Meh... I don't think I'm explaining it well =(. I keep trying to rephrase it... it doesn't keep coming out right... oh well.

In any case though, the side against homosexual mairrage is just as guilty of this too. I'm would definitely not just nail it to one side on this one. Both sides use this quite a bit. And so many people use it that it's just been irritating me a tiny bit as of late. Sorry. =P