« In the Beginning was Code (aka ID) [w Addendum3] | Main | Blue State Blues (updated 30mar13) »

27 March 2013

Comments

Todd Juvinall

Listening to all the talking heads yesterday (and now today on DOMA), I have no confidence the "right thing" will be accomplished. After John Roberts sold out the Constitution on Obamacare, my guess is the lawyers will totally screw this up and the people will be tossed aside again. Sorry to say this.

One man ad one woman is the meaning of life. All other permutations are perverse.

Barry Pruett

I would urge everyone to listen or read yesterday's transcript from the oral arguments. The argument was fascinating and at times very funny. I do not see the court finding an equal protection violation here, as same-sex couples and heterosexual couples do not appear to be similarly situated...but with this court, you never know. The opinion will be very interesting. My guess is that the Court will punt.

Joe Koyote

"After all, there is no intention to hide anything here, is there?..... One man ad one woman is the meaning of life. All other permutations are perverse.

Considering the hate that some people place upon gays, gays might want to hide their private affairs from bigots to avoid bodily harm, discrimination in the workplace or home buying, renting, verbal abuse, taunting, or other hate crimes. One's sexuality is, after all, their own private business unless they care to broadcast it, as is the case with some.

"After John Roberts sold out the Constitution on Obamacare, my guess is the lawyers will totally screw this up and the people will be tossed aside again. " -- Was Citizens United another example of the people getting tossed aside or was that OK?

Paul Emery

No Todd. War is perverse. Loving relationships are a blessing.

That's kind of an odd statement from someone who advertises his dangler so freely.

" Anyway, I am a lovable, vibrant TSA adored fellow. "

http://www.sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com/2013/03/liberals-need-our-prayers-and-sympathy.html#comment-form

Todd Juvinall

Funny how the libs call anyone a bigot when they disagree. My guess is the liberals would not marry outside their race or ethnicity because mom and dad would cut off their trust money. LOL!

Citizen's United is a fine piece of law because it found , GASP!, free speech in the First Amendment!

Joe Koyote

"Funny how the libs call anyone a bigot when they disagree. " if the shoe fits wear it. funny how when conservatives say bigoted things its all the evil libs fault. If you get in a car wreck will that be the libs fault also?

So money is free speech and corporations are living breathing people, right Todd?

Paul Emery

So George, you propose some kind of check box on a marriage certificate and that would take care of the problem. I assume you have no problem with same sexers being entitled to all Federal and State benefits and that they should are entitled to the same rights as those who have traditional marriages.

TheMikeyMcD

#1- our culture has made a mockery of marriage
#2- it is our own fault for letting the government into our bedrooms
#3- we've much more pressing problems http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Paul Emery

Mikey

Why should the government be involved in any way with the definition of marriage?

Barry Pruett

Paul: In California, the government was not involved in anyway in defining marriage. Right or wrong, the people constitutionally defined it with Prop 8. I think that the Supreme Court case is more about whether or not the proponents have standing to appeal than the equal protection clause. If the government can thwart the California initiative process by not appealing, does not that government action thwart the will of the people?

Paul Emery

Barry

The will of the people is still subject to the Constitution and Federal law despite being demonstrated through the imitative process. For example a state imitative could be passed barring interracial marriage but it would be rejected by the Supreme Court. Fundamentalist Libertarians may support states rights in that matter however.

Jurisdiction is an intriguing mix to the question that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Prop 8 which was successfully challenged through the California Courts. I'm shaky on understanding this but are you contending that because the State of Calif did not defend Prop 8 they are contrary to the will of the people? I need help on this. That's what lawyers are for.

Ben Emery

Let me chime in my usual way of seeing it a different way. First off the marriage argument is a red herring. I have been part of equality issues and movements for over two decades. Only until the last ten years or so has the fight been over the term marriage. It started in the right wing echo chamber of talk radio and FOX. Traditionally it has been about equal access to privileges/ benefits for same sex couples. An official affirmation that their civil union.

Our government and private sector have made incentives for people to marry, which I will call privileges/ benefits (p/b). To receive these p/b our government must receive and recognize a couples application, fees, and have a ceremony of some sort of a public (witnesses) declaration to each other with an authorized person to conduct over the ceremony. These p/b cross state borders and receive p/b of state/ federal, which brings in federal law and the US Constitution.

Personally I think our government isn't in existence to have authority over marriage. I would argue our government should have a say in civil unions that make couples eligible for the p/b married couples get in public and private contracts. Then marriages will either be performed and recognized by a church or entity of the couples desire. If their church or entity doesn't recognize same sex marriages maybe it is time to force the church to change or find a new denomination.

George Rebane

PaulE 1012am - Correct as was stated in the post.

Ben Emery

Barry,
What you are describing is judicial review, which seems to become the Supreme Courts only function over the last century or so. The funny thing about it "Judicial Review" isn't outlined in the US Constitution as a power of the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS was supposed to be the final appeals court not the constitutionality court. It was supposed to be the people who vote for legislators who will determine the laws not a few unelected unaccountable life time appointees.

Article III
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Paul Emery

But George, right now same sexers do not have the same Federal standing in many situations. How would you correct that?

George Rebane

PaulE 520pm - Pass a law, that's why we have a Congress. The federal law will stipulate that any same sex couple that qualifies to be garried (working name for gay married) according to the laws of their state, and becomes garried will receive the same legal benefits, and be subject to the same obligations as a married couple. The only difference is that where a domestic partnership status is required to be stated, the labels 'married','garried', 'single', etc will be used.

Bill Tozer

I am confused by all this. Anyone, everyone of age is free to marry a person of the opposite sex for centuries. Now, what am I missing? Oh course there are some caveats. You can't marry someone who is already married and you can't marry one of your parents or one of your siblings. This applies equally across the board. Total non issue.

Todd Juvinall

PaulE, two men and two women being married is perverse. It is unnatural in the reaL world. You are one sick puppy. So i Joe,.

You two are bigots and need to cool it.

I am a amazed that you too libss have so little sense of humor.

Paul Emery

Sure Todd

Calling people who are in love with other perverts is real funny.

Ben Emery

Bill,
It is about the privileges/ benefits that come with being married. That is why it is different. I say take away all those privileges/ benefits and the issue goes away and becomes an issue for the faith based communities to address. I 100% support same sex marriages on the bases of not believing in second class citizens or human beings. Being homosexual is a natural behavior that a small portion of the general population is born into. Nothing more nothing less, there should be no difference to the laws or privileges/ benefits that are given to the majority.

Ben Emery

Justice Sotomayor nailed.

“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”

Ben Emery

Should say "Justice Sotomayor nailed it."

Barry Pruett

Paul: In order for someone to bring a lawsuit they must be injured in fact and not a general grievance that all citizens have. Usually it is up to the State to appeal a ruling in connection with its laws or constitution. In this instance, the constitutional amendment was enacted by the people and not the legislature. When the amendment was found to be unconstitutional, Jerry Brown refused to defend the amendment, so the proponents of the amendment initiative defended. The question is whether the proponents "injury" is different from those of the general public and whether they were injured as proponents of a ballot initiative. The question has never been presented to the Court and is a question of first impression. I personally think that the question is very interesting.

Ben: Judicial Review has been around since Marbry v. Madison (over two hundred years). Good luck with that argument!

Barry Pruett

I think George is articulating well the questions presented by the Court. Are same-sex couples being excluded from marriage or is it that same-sex couples are simply not included in the institution of marriage?

Paul Emery

Thanks Barry

Anyone ever tell you you'd make a good lawyer?

Barry Pruett

Ben: I am not a Supreme Court justice but distinguishing Sotomayor's comments is easy. There is no rational basis for discriminating against homosexuals in connection with employment or benefits, because in that particular context, homosexuals and heterosexuals are completely similarly situated (much the same as interracial marriage). In the context of marriage, homosexuals and heterosexuals are not similarly situated, because of the procreational aspect of the historical institution of marriage which was created in part to insure that children have a higher likelihood of growing up with the parents who created them. She and you are comparing apples and oranges. I do see your point, and I think that homosexual couples should have laws that protect their relationships, but you are just arguing about a label. George calls one married and the other garried. The institutions are significantly different and the people inside each institution are not similarly situated.

Barry Pruett

Paul: Once or twice;) I would urge you (and everyone) to listen to the oral argument. I thought that it was fascinating. It was funny too. Kagan was trying to make a point that couples over 55 do not procreate and asked whether it would be constitutional to refuse marriage licenses to them. Scalia then commented that Strom Thurmond (who father children well into his 70's) was not on the Senate judiciary committee when Kagan was confirmed. Funny. The debate was really educational, as I had never heard the arguments presented in that way.

Ben Emery

A traditional bible based marriage explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=player_embedded

Paul Emery

George 7:26 Pm

So George if you are for equality and only wa nt a different label th en for sure you would support the repeal of DOMA.

Michael Anderson

George, you continue to spiral into the earth on this issue. Gays will be married, they will raise children, and that will be the end of it. Yeah, I don't need to wait for any WSJ-sanctioned "study" to tell me what I already know: poor kids do really shitty in school despite their inherent capabilities, and rich kids do really well in school despite their inherent capabilities. The only negative effect of gay parentage is the result of cultural ass-wipes who continue to insist it must be differentiated, which attaches a legacy stigma, and harms the children.

Perhaps the sexual revolution passed you by? Bummer for you.

Gay marriage is a done deal, George. Time to get over it, and you cannot label it away. Rush Limbaugh says that sanctioning gay marriage will lead to people marrying their yard animals, but of course you understand that this kind of a statement is completely ludicrous. Gay marriage is NOT polyamory or polygamy. And anyone who suggests that this is the slippery slope to that wherewithal has just disqualified him/herself from the discussion.

As I have stated before to you, George, you are tilting at windmills on this one. It is completely over. Done. Next subject. There will still be a gay marriage adoption period that will take some time. But by the time gay marriage and kids being raised by these unions becomes more commonplace, you will be long gone, so don't sweat it. Don't worry, be happy.

'Garried'? Seriously? Sheesh...

M.

Barry Pruett

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/gay-marriage-is-a-threat-to-gay-sexual-freedom/

From the above link:

"I say all this because of the big deal made over the difference between civil unions and 'marriage.' Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle. This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that hate them. It’s also to send the message that gays can be just as boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be seen as a 'traditional family.' Sorry, honey, as long as your junk don’t interlock, you’re not. This has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously."

Not all homosexuals support same-sex marriage. In fact, many (some of whom are frineds of mine) are highly against it as it cuts into same-sex sexual freedom.

Todd Juvinall

It is the bizarre people like Michael who missed the "sexual revolution" and are now a confused bunch (his goats are nervous, LOL!). People with traditional values of a man and woman marrying are the rocks of civilization. Not the bizarre pairing of the MA's desires.

If the "law" forces people to "legally" accept bizarre pairings, the traditional culture will not and that is the rub. Saying something is the same on paper does not make it so. Look at "busing" as a real world example of why some dictates do not work. Busing failed after laws were passed and billions of dollars were spent to force people outside their "comfort zones" Look at the results. Birds of a feather flock together and no judge can change that.

Men marrying men is unnatural and those of us that state that are not bigots for saying so. There are some traditions about humans that transcend a "law" and perversions of sex will be rejected in the market place.

Barry Pruett

Another issue here that nobody has discussed is this. The redefining of marriage denies, as a matter of public policy, the idea that children born from a marriage need the mother and father that created the child by placing the needs and desires of adults over the needs of the children they create. In his State of the Union address, Pres Obama mentioned "how critical fathers are" and how he wished that he had been able to spend more time with his own. Just a thought...

George Rebane

BarryP 722am - excellent point Barry. The children truly are the pawns in this game of 'lovers' rights'. All that pro-garriage advocates can cite in the courts and media is that "there is no evidence" for this or that deleterious effect on children raised by same sex parents. That there is yet no evidence is because there have been no studies done that can be called scientific on the issue (extremely low sample sizes from which to draw any statistically significant conclusions). And we recall that no evidence of an effect does not infer the absence of that effect.

Steve Frisch

Todd, I should count on you to missing the point almost every time, with your artificially inflated lingam and tiny cranium leading the way.

No one cares how you define 'traditional', the dominant culture has passed your definition, not just here in the good old US of A but around the world. Our culture is defining traditional in a new way, gay couples are parenting and doing a damn good job of it, and even young 'conservatives' are denying the power of the state to define social institutions. You have already lost the battle, whether the SCOTUS delivers a broad or a narrow decision.

And you may be correct about birds of a feather flocking together, in which case I expect to see a new state arise, coupling Christian fundamentalists like you and George, with Islamic extremists, in the near future.

By the way, how many times have you been married now? How many of those kids you fathered while Paul Emery was serving his country grew up in a broken home (see Sierra Dragons Breathe [sic]?)

By the way, I find it hilarious that a 'systems scientist' like George would fall into the serial logical fallacy of contending that lack of evidence to the effect does not mean absence of cause. It is the most inherently unscientific and illogical argument one could make. I have no evidence that the universe was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster thus it is logical for me to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the creator!

(Barry, I listened to the arguments last night and I agree they were fantastic)

Steve Frisch

I come back here almost every day to remind myself that while fearful people are looking down the slippery slope to an abyss hopeful people are busy bending the arc of history toward justice.

George Rebane

SteveF 816am - Your failed attempt to understand and correctly interpret "no evidence of an effect does not infer the absence of that effect" does however provide more than sufficient evidence to evaluate your ability to reason.

For the thinking reader, the quote from my 732am is simply a restatement of the well known 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. People new to reasoning often make that mistake, hence it is always included in beginning logic courses.

TheMikeyMcD

Ben, I pray that one day your hate will turn to love. Happy Easter

Steve Frisch

George, if you are too dense to get the twist I put on this, and do not understand that the point you are making that lack of evidence does not mean something is not the cause is not a rational basis for believing something, I can't help you.

The sky is blue; it could be because gremlins are painting it every morning before I get up, but I have no evidence that they are not, so they may be the cause. I can test that thesis by waking up before dawn and looking at the sky, but since I can't see the sky, they may be up there painting anyway.

It is this logic that leads to faith.

Paul Emery

George

Sorry for the typos earlier. Here is my question.

So George if you are for equality for same sex coulpes and only want a different label to describe same sex marriages then do you support the repeal of DOMA, with those stipulations.

Todd Juvinall

I have come to understand that people like the Frisch are so intimidated those that actually accomplish things they come to these places and attack. What a hoot. I am so far ahead of the curve people like the Frisch live in it is too easy. But, when you are a rent seeking government funded sycophant, what does one expect?

The facts are traditional life is practiced by most humans and homosexual marriage is not one of them. Frisch must have some gender issues with himself because he doth attack others too hard.

I come to this site sometimes for a Frisch farce laugh-a-thon. Worse logic cannot be found. The Frisch is the master.

George Rebane

PaulE 1046am – I have not argued “for equality for same sex couples”. What I do argue is that IF DOMA is repealed, and IF same sex couples are permitted to form unions that have all the rights and privileges granted to married heterosexual couples (excluding, of course, those not physiologically possible), THEN that union should be labeled something other than marriage (I here use a placeholder label ‘garriage’ for gay marriage).

Do I want DOMA repealed? Not really, since I hold sacrosanct the declared and normative union between a man and a woman called marriage. There are limits to my compassion for homosexuals, but these limits do encompass my not wanting them to be unduly punished for feelings that to them are natural and to me are not. And as I’ve said before, my biggest concern is how children are placed into and managed in a garriage. Were it not for issues arising therefrom, I would support the repeal of the remaining provisions of DOMA.

All said and done, garriage is a hard problem for everyone from SCOTUS on down. Most certainly it is a vexing one for me, and I will appreciate all comments of goodwill that can shed light on its resolution.

Paul Emery

Thanks for the thoughtful comments George.

I have to defer to Ron Paul on this when he says "voluntary relationships shouldn't be interfered by the state" The state should however not allow discrimination or diminished resources or privileges towards gay couples. Would that take a Federal ruling? Probably I differ with Ron Paul on this where he prefers this to be left up to the States. If it were left up to the states there could likely still be a ban on interracial marriages. That was settled buy the Supreme Court in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia, that overturned the States anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924

George Rebane

PaulE 408pm - the problem I see with Paul's statement is when such "voluntary relationships" impose on third parties not party to the relationship, but nevertheless these third parties are encumbered by government to materially honor the relationship entered into without the third parties' or their representatives' consent or involvement. Can you speak to that conundrum?

Bill Tozer

Hey, this is just a one day story. Media has already moved on to important stuff....yawn, that all there is to a fire?

Paul Emery

George

You wrote in this post " It is no longer a matter of the rights and privileges that the relationship confers, they already have that."

Yet you are opposed to the repeal of DOMA that indeed does restrict those rights and privileges on a national level. Can you explain that apparent inconsistency?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted September 21, 1996, Is a United States federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits and required inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States.

Ben Emery

Paul,
Many who oppose same sex marriage now would have been on the front lines opposing interracial marriage 50 years ago.

Here is a tv movie about the circumstances that caused the Loving vs. Virginia case you mentioned earlier.

Mr and Mrs Loving (1996)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=VxCysjSlR9I

Mickey,
What hatred are you referring? The only things I hate are oppression and exploitation.

Happy Ishtar.

Paul Emery

Ben

There are some who would prefer that those questions defer to States rights jurisdiction.

Ben Emery

Yes, State Rights for some is a legitimate argument but many it is code for segregation, bigotry, anti union/ worker rights, and legal right to pollute in the name of profit.

George Rebane

PaulE 844pm - You may have missed my 626pm.

BenE 947pm - But since there are no uniformly accepted definitions for all those listed grievances, how should we proceed if not by the Founders prescription that the states operate as the laboratories of self governance?

Paul Emery

George

In your view did the Federal Government overstep with the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court over step in in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia? Should those matters have been left to the states as you recommend with same sex marriage?

Also, is it not consistent to have firm data on the success of parenting by traditional couples before launching into researching those questions as applied to same sex couples if that is to be used as a standard for success. Are you not giving the federal government a massive chance to investigate our private lives by subscribing to such an inquiry? Who would conduct this research????

By the way, these are the current statistics on divorce. They seem to be almost 50%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Number of marriages: 2,096,000
Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

Ben Emery

George,
What you describing sounds more like the Articles of Confederation. That didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.
I had a long reply but decided against it because it would lead into further discussions about the Constitution which would be a waste of time. You mistakenly believe it is a conservative/ libertarian document when in actuality it is a series of compromises between a whole range of political ideas and philosophies. Your true opinions come out in the threads when you are pushed to clarify the positions on any given issue.

George Rebane

PaulE 436pm - I'll gladly take a cut at those when you finally acknowledge that I also have asked you a question or two - you have yet to acknowledge my 626pm. This again sounds like the prosecuting attorney interrogating the defendant - not much like a give and take two-way dialogue.

George Rebane

BenE 824pm - have no clue about what you are talking since this is a multi-threaded comment stream, and you don't reference a specific comment of mine.

Paul Emery

re:6:26

Can you be more specific about "third parties" ? I'll give it a try for what it's worth. By referring to those who must " materially honor the relationship entered into without the third parties' or their representatives' consent or involvement" I assume you are referring to those citizens who do not agree with granting equal rights and privileges same sex couples and why should they be forced to go along with whatever responsibilities and programs that become standard procedure.

As far as representation doesn't representation from our elected officials cover that? I am forced all the time to comply with laws that I personally did not consent to (war in Iraq-still paying for it - pot laws, needless regulations etc. I don't see anything special about same sex marriages having the same rights as conventional couples that is different than any legislation you or I disagree with and are forced to comply with. If the Supremes vote to toss DOMA is that not a direct reflection of the will of the people who elected the Presidents who appointed the justices?

As far as effects on children involved refer to 29 March 2013 at 04:36 PM. Conventional marriage statistically is a massive failure. 50% divorce rate doesn't take into account miserable failed relationships that don't get divorced and separations. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to encourage government involvement to study this issue.

Gregory

Paul, same sex marriage isn't about rights or privileges, it's about entitlements. In California, a civil union gives every *right* to a couple that any married couple has, just not an entitlement to Federal benefits or employment benefits offered to married spouses and not those of civil unions. In short, all same sex marriage has in California is a coercive value to those who do not want to compensate gay and lesbian spouses the same as heterosexual spouses.


A gay couple has every right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, under current law.

As far as marriage being a massive failure, that might have something to do with the quaint tradition that used to be embodied in law that a child born in wedlock had an entitlement to the fathers financial support, and outside of wedlock didn't, has a lot to do with it. Now all that's needed is either the admission by the babydaddy that he thought he was the sperm donor, or a DNA test forced by the government, for a judge to take everything a man has.

Particularly unfair have been the multiple cases of a woman hiding the paternity from the father for years, only to fess up to the government as a condition to continue to get welfare payments, with the government then going after the man who was denied the rights to be a parent for years of child support payments.

The DOMA should have gone after men's paternity rights that have been shredded over the years, and limited financial responsibility for children fathered outside of marriage, if they really wanted to bolster traditional marriage.

Gregory

Ben Emery, Mrs. Loving is on the record saying the movie you recommend, "Mr. and Mrs. Loving", got only one fact right, that she did indeed have three children.

By the way, your favorite Oliver Stone movies have about the same record.

Ben Emery

Greg,
As usual you attack the person. What an ass. What does Oliver Stone have to do with any of this? Sorry I didn't do the extensive background research you did by going to wikipedia. I just saw the movie online and gave a link to it. Didn't give it any reviews and or any indication that I have even watched it. It was based on the case Paul cited earlier, so I put out there.

Here is a quote from Mildred Loving in 2007 about same sex marriage.

"Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry 'I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."

Gregory

As usual, Ben Emery is projecting.

Attacking Oliver Stone docudramas as being largely fiction isn't an attack against Oliver Stone, the person. Look up "ad hominem", Ben. Looks like I hit a soft spot... did you think they were accurate?

Mrs. Loving doesn't quite have the weight of the Supremes, who didn't use any of Mrs. Loving's reasoning to strike the criminal conviction of her and her husband.

BTW Disney's "Pocahontas" was even worse than Stone's "JFK".

Ben Emery

Greg,
What ever dude, go enjoy the spring weather and get some fresh air.

TheMikeyMcD

Mr. Politician, your anti-christian video was the most wreckless, irresponsible and hateful thing I have witnessed anyone post here, ever. You are a bigot, hypocrite and intellectual lightweight. Your emotion based ideolotry requires enslavement (antithesis of individual liberty). Take any of your 'solutions' to their endpoints and you will find the heavy hand of government (run by champagne socialists with guns in hand) stealing liberty from the common man. I've yet to find a piece of your ideology that is not rooted in envy, pride, hate (simply see the video you posted for all the proof needed).

Your hatred of Christians, employers, successful Americans and your idolotry of godernment shows in everything you write.


George Rebane

PaulE 1020am - I suppose that would be a class of third parties. Parties who fashioned their business or charity or ... to respond to and service married people without giving it a second thought, would now suddenly by government diktat have to enlarge and reformulate their business and professional activities to also service garried people. No one yet knows what unintended consequences are in store for us from messing with an institution that has been fundamental to all cultures for millenia.

And that is the real issue here. Do we really want government to have the power to redefine within an eyeblink an ingrained institution that is so fundamental to our society. I'm not sure that your democracy arguments give anyone ease in such a situation. Our Founders most certainly did not think that democracy would be a functional form of governance at today's ratio of representative to citizens/voters. I have talked to this problem numerous times - e.g.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/06/democracy-bound-on-the-ship-of-fools-.html

Gregory

Ben Emery, I accept your forfeit, graceless though it be.

Bill Tozer

Intolerance will not be tolerated.

Steve Frisch

George Rebane | 30 March 2013 at 08:20 PM: "No one yet knows what unintended consequences are in store for us from messing with an institution that has been fundamental to all cultures for millenia."

Funny George, that is exactly he same argument many used to rationalize slavery.

George Rebane

SteveF 1255pm - is this your attempt to connect my collateral damages comment to your continuing indictment that I am a racist? You can bet the ranch that revoking DOMA is going to cause ripples across America that will surprise you even more than the fact that AB32 has done exactly the opposite of what you predicted. But then who knows, maybe you aren't surprised by the devastating aftermath of AB32 on California's economy.

And no one needs to "rationalize slavery" or be its proponent in order to understand that "messing" with it caused unintended consequences, i.e. the war between the states, the first 'modern war' in history.

Your logic in making these connections continues to astound the logician and semanticist, but not any student of progressive thought.

Paul Emery

George

Can you explain the apparent contradiction in views concerning legalizing gay marriage. On one hand you write "It is no longer a matter of the rights and privileges that the relationship confers, they already have that.", and later you state “I have not argued for equality for same sex couples” . Can you help me understand this ?

George Rebane

PaulE 628pm - where is the contradiction? One is a statement of the acknowledged state of current affairs re the rights and privileges conferred on gay couples, and the other is testimony of my own preferences on aspects of equality for same sex couples. They are apples and oranges. How on earth did you come to couple them?

Paul Emery

But George you state that gay couples have the same rights and privileges as straight couples which is absolutely not true under DOMA. Any reasonable person reading your entry would conclude that your primary concern is in the use of the word marriage which you prefer to be reserved for male female couples and the use of a different word for the other (gamarge or whatever). Of course other impacts are not known (effects on children). How could they be and what discovery process could possibly reveal them? What is known is the miserable success rate of conventional marriage which it would have to be compared to

It's interesting that you want government responsibilities to include legislating semantics. That's a far cry from any Libertarian tenants for sure.

George Rebane

PaulE 918pm - government very much legislates and already punishes the use of wrong semantics. Semantics are important, and I don't think it's matter of libertarian or liberal speak. The Constitution is a semantics rich document. Everyone wants to own certain words.

On the matter marriage/garriage I will have to stand with what I have posted.

Gregory

"But George you state that gay couples have the same rights and privileges as straight couples which is absolutely not true under DOMA."

Paul, could you name a right or privilege (as opposed to an entitlement) given a married couple in California not given to a couple in a civil union?

Paul Emery

Why not entitlements Gregory?

Pursuit of Happiness for those who find it spiritually significant for one. Equal entitlements are are a pretty basic ingredient if you're claiming equality. Couple A get them couple B (same sex) don't under DOMA. DOMA restricts federal marriage benefits and requires inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States. So if a married same sex couple in California receives rights and privileges and entitlements (I include that) but desire to move to a state for whatever reason that doesn't provide the same situation they are defiantly not equal. To that extent it affects their ability to pursue economic and personal opportunities and indeed their Pursuit of Happiness.

From the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Gregory

Why?

Paul, a right is something the government can't take from you. Freedom of speech, press, improper search and seizure. An entitlement is something the government first has to take from someone else.

Hey, there's better unemployment bennies in California than there is in Texas. Why can't the jobless move to Texas and get the same goodies as they did before they left, for example, Stockton?

Gregory

Putting aside for a moment that the Declaration of Independence has no force of law in the USA, it's the "pursuit of happiness" not a guarantee of income support if it will make you happy.

Paul Emery

I contend same sex marriage is a form of Freedom of Speech manifest as self expression. Why should it be different from one state to the next? You may not like entitlements but that's not the question. I don't know your situation but if you receive federal entitlements you would expect them to be the same from state to state.

Your attempted irony (Texas) is not successful here in expressing anything but sarcasm. A person in a gay couple who has the opportunity for career advancement in another state that does not recognize his or her marriage must suffer the consequences to accept the new job. This creates an advantage for a straight couple and is therefore discriminatory much like a mixed couple in the 60's would have experienced say moving from California to Alabama for a job opportunity. This is the way things are right now under DOMA.

Gregory

I've homosexual friends who consider themselves married and I'm happy to treat them as such, as in "How's the wife?" Face it, Paul, you're not talking about anything but the money.

It's just about the entitlements, which is why you wouldn't answer the question about what *Right* is being denied.

Paul Emery

I told you the "right" of freedom of speech and expression in my view is being denied, also the pursuit of happiness which is what freedom is all about. Couples want to get married because it makes them happy and fulfilled and accepted. For others, just like straight couples, it doesn't matter. I have friends that got married during the short time before Prop 8 and to them it was the joy of their life to be accepted as a married couple.

Gregory

"I told you the "right" of freedom of speech and expression in my view is being denied"

Even breeders can call themselves married without actually being married. Freedom of speech and expression has nothing to do with it.

Paul Emery

Do you want to talk to my friends about this? They can express their joy of being married much more passionately than I can.

Gregory

There's no need to have a government sanctioned "marriage" to have the joy of being married. Do you think these folks had a piece of paper?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/31641127.html

Paul Emery

Are you in a "government sanctioned marriage" and if so why did you decide to do so? Why shouldn't gay couples have the same opportunity and experience?

Gregory

Paul, you dodged the question, again.

That was a poignant burial, wasn't it? That is the essence of where traditional marriage came from. What is the earliest known burial of a same sex couple and their progeny in similar embrace?

How a same sex marriage that doesn't include Federal benefits or forcing private parties to treat them the same as traditional marriages?

Gregory

" I have friends that got married during the short time before Prop 8 and to them it was the joy of their life to be accepted as a married couple."

Afterwards, the same people who accepted it before accepted it, and the same people who didn't still didn't. And they didn't get any monetary benefits, either.

Would renaming civil union as marriage and allowing society to choose to subsidize it at different rates than marriage that is historically bound with reproduction make your friends happy? Marriage in name, just not in money?

Paul Emery

Yes Gregory it is indeed poignant but pretty irrelevant to the question at hand. Who knows what rituals they subscribed to What we consider romantic love was largely manifest years later. Gosh,we do like to procreate don't we!

Again, why shouldn't gay couples have the same experience of marriage if they chose to do so as straight couples. If entitlements are provided to straight couples what are the reasons gay couples should have the same? Do they not pay the same taxes and participate in the same health and retirement programs as straight couples? If they are not entitled to the same it can be argued that if they are forced to pay into what they are not entitled to why should they pay the same?

re 8:39

Why should society subsidize it with different rates? Can you give me some examples? Don't gay couples pay the same taxes that subsidize schools for example? Since 50% of marriages end in divorce and taxpayers must pick up[ the tab for non sustainable parents why should gays have to pay that bill. If a gay couple both work and pay taxes why should they not have the same return for their contribution?


Gregory

The teachers and staff thank the gays for contributing to civilization, especially given the low demands for education quality and high support for teacher's unions.

Many of us breeders would have been happier with a little more quality.

Have a little more reverence, Paul. That burial after their murder is the oldest known family burial. Please, a gay equivalent.

Gregory

"If entitlements are provided to straight couples what are the reasons gay couples should[n't] have the same?"

There are more children associated with breeder families, aren't there?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad