Do you feel that being against affirmative action is racist? If you do, then hey, I'm a racist in your eyes, but that doesn't bother me one bit. Similarly, if thinking that homosexuality is immoral makes me a "homosex-ist" or whatever it's called, then fine, I am.
I trust you would feel discriminated against, as a heterosexual, if we changed the law so that:
- Every man or woman, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality, may marry one person of the same sex.
I wouldn't feel discriminated against. I'd say that the law is terrible because it forces marriage to become something completely immoral and completely backwards (at least legally speaking) with respect to what marriage has been for the past 4000+ years. I could go on and on with reasons why that would be a terrible law. But it's still not discrimination.
Calling it discrimination is just trying to tie it into slavery. But truly, there are no similarities between the two situations, IMHO.
Okay, if you want to be pedantic about it, lets just reword the rules down to one rule that applies to everyone:
- Every man or woman, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality, may marry one person of the opposite sex.
Okay, there's one rule to apply to everyone equally. To me, that one rule appears to codify the "current" meaning of marriage. Now where is the discrimination?
Not all right-wingers are bigots, no. Just all the ones who are opposing equal rights bills.
You need to try to see the issue through their eyes. To them, it's not an equal rights issue. To them, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally morally reprehensible as a law allowing rape or murder, since homosexuality is equally immoral in their eyes.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
I'm sorry if I haven't replied to all of your points of discussion, I HAVE read them thoughtfully, and I thank you for your time. I wish I had time to write similarly lengthy and thoughtful replies. Anyway, to attempt to address your question:
Again, would you be upset if you could only legally marry a man? I trust that you would. Similarly, there are women that are upset because they are legally prevented from marrying women. Why should you have that ability and they not?
Well, some people see homosexuality as grossly immoral for both religious and non-religious reasons. In light of that, it makes perfect sense for these people to want to discourage immoral acts by legal means, just like we discourage murder or rape by legal means as well.
So to some people, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally disturbing as a law allowing rape or murder. I'm not saying the YOU should feel that way, I'm just saying that's how many people look at the situation.
I can't explain the legal benefits one way or the other, probably because I see the legal implications of marriage as just a tiny portion of what marriage IS. Sadly, many see the legal benefits as the primary reason for marriage.
You can not claim that it "harms nobody" just because it wouldn't or doesn't harm you. One of many ways it may harm others is that it would be the start of the government endorsing what many consider a sin - not something these people look forward to.
You make many interesting points, and a good thoughtful post, with the exception of generalizing all right-wingers as bigots... but I digress.
Anyway, what may be "bigotry" to you may be "preserving good morals" to someone else. And each person thinks the other wrong.
As long as two athiests who cannot have children (like my friends Mark and Jennifer) can go down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license with nothing more than the required fee and two witnesses, then I can see no rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for denying the same exact right to a gay couple.
Well, just because you can't see a rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for it, doesn't mean other people can't. For starters, many people don't see it as an "equal rights" issue for many reasons.
For starters, you make very good points in your description of the "in between" sex people due to birth defects. I really don't know how to deal with that.
One question back to you. If we limit marriage to two people of any sex, What damage to my traditional marrige of over 20+ years can even be concidered to occur? I have never seen a real attempt to answer this question.
Literal reading of your suggestion implies that siblings would be allowed to marry, and kids would be allowed to marry their parents, etc. There are other many other concerns, some of which are as simple as not wanting to change "societal norms".
That merely states that the constitution itself does not deny rights. It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution. At least, that's how I read it.
I never asserted that I or anyone else was "morally superior". Don't put words in my mouth. That said, it's obvious that different people have different morals, and the question is, how do we deal with that?
This is a secular country, the state has NO OPINION on moral issues.
Hmm, one might say that punishing murder is the "moral" thing to do, are you saying the state should not do that? Some would say that giving relief money to AIDS victims in foreign nations is the MORAL thing to do, should we stop that too? Sorry, but the government most certainly DOES deal with moral issues every day. You only have a problem when your morals do not equal theirs. The solution is to use your vote or write your congressman/congresswoman.
But perhaps you meant to say "religious issues" instead of "moral issues". I know plenty of atheist who have good morals.
Anyway, I'd hate to see a government that had no morals. Apparently, so did these guys:
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." - George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." - George Washington
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." - John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington
Now whether or not you agree with those guys, you must admit that SOME people feel morality is a HUGE part of government.
The discrimination isn't codified
Maybe that's because it isn't discrimination. Is "no smoking" in restaurants discrimination against smokers, or just a person's choice about how they want to run their restaurant?
Send me a link to the text of his actual dissent, rather than your "interpretation" of it and I'll decide.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution, then I would say no, Scalia is not an activist in this case.
For my education, can you provide specific cases where judges made decisions based on foreign laws?
In the recent SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for minors, one (or more) of the justices DIRECTLY REFERRED TO THE LAWS OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES as the sole basis of their judgement. The ruling was that minors can NOT be put to death, no matter what. This was a few months ago. I'm too lazy too dig up a direct link, but you should be able to find it with that info.
What about judges who refer to the non-constitutional sources, such as the Christian Bible, for the definition of marriage, when the word itself has many different historical meanings? I doubt you would call them 'activist judges'.
Since the US Constitution does not define marriage, then if a law is passed that defines it, then it can not possibly be unconstitutional, since the constitution does not address it. However, since some judges disagree with the legislature, they blindly apply their own personal meaning, rather than the meaning that fits the will of the people who elected those representatives.
In any case, it's still discriminatory, because you're essentially being told that you can't marry the person of your choosing.
Well, we don't let people marry their parents or siblings even if they "choose to". So your point is moot. There ARE societal rules for these things, and for a good reason.
And telling someone you can't marry a person of the same sex is not discrimination if you tell EVERYONE that.
A good argument, but it rests on the assumption that women and men are the same. But men and women are different. Before I get flamed, realize that I'm NOT SAYING that one sex is better or worse than the other. I'm just saying men are different than women. It's a fact.
What legitimate interest is it for the state to say that a woman and another woman or a man and a man cannot marry?
Perhaps "preservation of society" would be an answer to your question - I'm sure there are other better answers. But, you wont get those answers from people who call members of the GOP "gay haters".
Why should only heterosexuals be able to marry the ones they love?
Wait a minute, if someone loves their dad, should he or she be able to marry him? Or their mom? Or their brother or sister? There's MUCH more to marriage than just love.
I consider a federal judge who bases his or her rulings on FOREIGN LAWS or STATE LAWS rather than the US CONSTITUTION, or distorts the language away from it's original meaning when it was written, to be an activist judge.
They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without completely changing the meaning of language as well.
Maybe you can explain something that I do not understand. Please explain the unfairness of these rules:
- One man may marry one woman. - One man may NOT marry anyone other than one woman. - One woman may NOT marry anyone other than one man.
In each of the three previous lines, it DOES NOT MATTER whether said man or said woman is gay or straight. The rules apply to everyone equally! So how is this discrimination? It sounds to me like some people want to change the rules rather than have the rules applied equally, since they already are!
This is not intended as flaimbait, I seriously want to hear what you have to say in a logical, intelligent discussion... yeah I know, hard to find on slashdot!:)
As an aside, I agree that the government has gotten too deep in to the marriage business, although I'm not sure they should be 100% removed from it... maybe just 90-95% removed, although I don't want to get into discussing that remaining 5-10% at the moment.
The part about uneven application of rules ("no personal pictures"), reduced hours, and layoffs certainly *is* discrimination.
Others see the "no pictures of gay lovers" rule as applicable to all persons, gay or straight, and thus it is not discrimination. The reduced hours and layoffs mentioned by the original poster were for "bad attitude" not for "being gay". Or are you saying they're discriminating against people with "bad attitudes"?
THe law protects you from this "conformity", but the law does not protect you (and in some places punishes you) for being gay.
I think that many people feel that the law should NOT protect someone for being gay. Just like the law does not protect someone for being a "murderer". And in many people's minds, those two things are equally morally reprehensible.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
I think that's unlikely, considering the large GOP majority in both houses of the US Congress, a GOP president, and a whole lot of conservative judicial nominations in the works. But only time will tell.
"Gay rights" often means different things to different people. Many people say that since "one man can marry one woman" regardless of whether they are gay or straight, and also that "no two men can marry" whether they are gay or straight, then their rights are already equal. Gays asking for men to marry men and women to marry women are asking for "additional" things, not equal things.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you feel that being against affirmative action is racist? If you do, then hey, I'm a racist in your eyes, but that doesn't bother me one bit. Similarly, if thinking that homosexuality is immoral makes me a "homosex-ist" or whatever it's called, then fine, I am.
I wouldn't feel discriminated against. I'd say that the law is terrible because it forces marriage to become something completely immoral and completely backwards (at least legally speaking) with respect to what marriage has been for the past 4000+ years. I could go on and on with reasons why that would be a terrible law. But it's still not discrimination.
Calling it discrimination is just trying to tie it into slavery. But truly, there are no similarities between the two situations, IMHO.
Okay, if you want to be pedantic about it, lets just reword the rules down to one rule that applies to everyone:
- Every man or woman, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality, may marry one person of the opposite sex.
Okay, there's one rule to apply to everyone equally. To me, that one rule appears to codify the "current" meaning of marriage. Now where is the discrimination?
You need to try to see the issue through their eyes. To them, it's not an equal rights issue. To them, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally morally reprehensible as a law allowing rape or murder, since homosexuality is equally immoral in their eyes.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
Well, some people see homosexuality as grossly immoral for both religious and non-religious reasons. In light of that, it makes perfect sense for these people to want to discourage immoral acts by legal means, just like we discourage murder or rape by legal means as well.
So to some people, a law allowing gays to marry would be as equally disturbing as a law allowing rape or murder. I'm not saying the YOU should feel that way, I'm just saying that's how many people look at the situation.
I hope this clears things up.
I can't explain the legal benefits one way or the other, probably because I see the legal implications of marriage as just a tiny portion of what marriage IS. Sadly, many see the legal benefits as the primary reason for marriage.
You can not claim that it "harms nobody" just because it wouldn't or doesn't harm you. One of many ways it may harm others is that it would be the start of the government endorsing what many consider a sin - not something these people look forward to.
Anyway, what may be "bigotry" to you may be "preserving good morals" to someone else. And each person thinks the other wrong.
Well, just because you can't see a rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for it, doesn't mean other people can't. For starters, many people don't see it as an "equal rights" issue for many reasons.
Well, for starters, people are born with their race, but performing homosexual acts are a person's choice, not something you're born with.
For starters, you make very good points in your description of the "in between" sex people due to birth defects. I really don't know how to deal with that.
One question back to you. If we limit marriage to two people of any sex, What damage to my traditional marrige of over 20+ years can even be concidered to occur? I have never seen a real attempt to answer this question.
Literal reading of your suggestion implies that siblings would be allowed to marry, and kids would be allowed to marry their parents, etc. There are other many other concerns, some of which are as simple as not wanting to change "societal norms".
That merely states that the constitution itself does not deny rights. It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution. At least, that's how I read it.
I never asserted that I or anyone else was "morally superior". Don't put words in my mouth. That said, it's obvious that different people have different morals, and the question is, how do we deal with that?
This is a secular country, the state has NO OPINION on moral issues.
Hmm, one might say that punishing murder is the "moral" thing to do, are you saying the state should not do that? Some would say that giving relief money to AIDS victims in foreign nations is the MORAL thing to do, should we stop that too? Sorry, but the government most certainly DOES deal with moral issues every day. You only have a problem when your morals do not equal theirs. The solution is to use your vote or write your congressman/congresswoman.
But perhaps you meant to say "religious issues" instead of "moral issues". I know plenty of atheist who have good morals.
Anyway, I'd hate to see a government that had no morals. Apparently, so did these guys:
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." - George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." - George Washington
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." - John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington
Now whether or not you agree with those guys, you must admit that SOME people feel morality is a HUGE part of government.
The discrimination isn't codified
Maybe that's because it isn't discrimination. Is "no smoking" in restaurants discrimination against smokers, or just a person's choice about how they want to run their restaurant?
Send me a link to the text of his actual dissent, rather than your "interpretation" of it and I'll decide.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution, then I would say no, Scalia is not an activist in this case.
In the recent SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for minors, one (or more) of the justices DIRECTLY REFERRED TO THE LAWS OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES as the sole basis of their judgement. The ruling was that minors can NOT be put to death, no matter what. This was a few months ago. I'm too lazy too dig up a direct link, but you should be able to find it with that info.
Since the US Constitution does not define marriage, then if a law is passed that defines it, then it can not possibly be unconstitutional, since the constitution does not address it. However, since some judges disagree with the legislature, they blindly apply their own personal meaning, rather than the meaning that fits the will of the people who elected those representatives.
Well, we don't let people marry their parents or siblings even if they "choose to". So your point is moot. There ARE societal rules for these things, and for a good reason.
And telling someone you can't marry a person of the same sex is not discrimination if you tell EVERYONE that.
A good argument, but it rests on the assumption that women and men are the same. But men and women are different. Before I get flamed, realize that I'm NOT SAYING that one sex is better or worse than the other. I'm just saying men are different than women. It's a fact.
Perhaps "preservation of society" would be an answer to your question - I'm sure there are other better answers. But, you wont get those answers from people who call members of the GOP "gay haters".
Wait a minute, if someone loves their dad, should he or she be able to marry him? Or their mom? Or their brother or sister? There's MUCH more to marriage than just love.
I consider a federal judge who bases his or her rulings on FOREIGN LAWS or STATE LAWS rather than the US CONSTITUTION, or distorts the language away from it's original meaning when it was written, to be an activist judge.
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without completely changing the meaning of language as well.
Maybe you can explain something that I do not understand. Please explain the unfairness of these rules:
:)
- One man may marry one woman.
- One man may NOT marry anyone other than one woman.
- One woman may NOT marry anyone other than one man.
In each of the three previous lines, it DOES NOT MATTER whether said man or said woman is gay or straight. The rules apply to everyone equally! So how is this discrimination? It sounds to me like some people want to change the rules rather than have the rules applied equally, since they already are!
This is not intended as flaimbait, I seriously want to hear what you have to say in a logical, intelligent discussion... yeah I know, hard to find on slashdot!
As an aside, I agree that the government has gotten too deep in to the marriage business, although I'm not sure they should be 100% removed from it... maybe just 90-95% removed, although I don't want to get into discussing that remaining 5-10% at the moment.
Others see the "no pictures of gay lovers" rule as applicable to all persons, gay or straight, and thus it is not discrimination. The reduced hours and layoffs mentioned by the original poster were for "bad attitude" not for "being gay". Or are you saying they're discriminating against people with "bad attitudes"?
I think that many people feel that the law should NOT protect someone for being gay. Just like the law does not protect someone for being a "murderer". And in many people's minds, those two things are equally morally reprehensible.
I think that's unlikely, considering the large GOP majority in both houses of the US Congress, a GOP president, and a whole lot of conservative judicial nominations in the works. But only time will tell.
"Gay rights" often means different things to different people. Many people say that since "one man can marry one woman" regardless of whether they are gay or straight, and also that "no two men can marry" whether they are gay or straight, then their rights are already equal. Gays asking for men to marry men and women to marry women are asking for "additional" things, not equal things.