OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[John Remedy]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Excellent! A classical education! Now all you need to learn is Greek ...

I don't know about that. The only Latin I know is non gratum anus rodentum... :crazyeyes:

 

[Raskah]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

“1- All the citizens have the same social dignity and are equal before the law.
2- Nobody can privileged, be benefited, wronged, private of any right or of any duty in reason of ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, certainties ideological politics or instruction, economic situation, social condition or sexual orientation.â€

This is a rough translation of the principle of equality stated in the Portuguese Constitution that I think is similar to others from other democratic countries. It clearly states that nobody private of any right or duty in reason of sexual orientation. But still, marriage, as the recognition as couple from State is denied to homosexual couples and by that the State is denying one of the rights to those people.

Recently this *issue* was lightly debated in Portugal, because in next year there will be elections and the government don’t need this problematic issue to difficult the re-election. :whistling:

Most people in Portugal, as a mainly catholic country, see homosexuality as a sin and don’t accept the marriage of couple of the same sex, because they cannot see the difference between the religious marriage and marriage as a union of two people to the eyes of the State. Marriage still is the ceremony that is preformed in church with a wedding dress and priest. Is it wrong to believe like that? No, anyone believes in what they want. Is this a preconception? IMHO it is.

But one of the most important things that people forget is as the Democracy (and most of the govern systems) separated themselves from Religion, the religious marriage without the civil marriage part doesn’t have any value to the State. I mean you do have to sign the book at the end of the ceremony and registry your marriage or you and your bride are not a couple. As someone said in here (sorry I don’t remember you said and I’m not going to read the whole thing again) if marriage is considered a religious issue, government has no business regulating it but the problem is that if marriage, the civil marriage, is the way of the State recognize two citizens as a couple, then religion and it’s believes should not meddle with it.

 

[Zefru]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This is not the beauty of democracy. That a majority of people can dictate how a minority should behave in their *private life* is absolutely horrific. The day this proposal gets accepted is the day democracy died in your state.

This is doing absolutely nothing to dictate how people are living their "private lives". They can continue to live their private lives exactly how they want.

And one of the core definitions and values of democracy is the "rule of the majority". The majority have spoken and as a fundamental core value of democracy that decision should be embraced and accepted. Otherwise it is just as big a travesty that the millions and millions of people who voted for McCain don't get him as their President just because they were the minority.

You can argue theology and religion and human rights all you want because those are personal beliefs but as a democratic process this worked as intended, it allowed the people, the society, to decide for themselves what they want to accept in their society. Do we ignore democracy and the majority rule just because someone feels strongly that something should be one way or the other? Like or dislike the results this was democracy working as intended.

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This is doing absolutely nothing to dictate how people are living their "private lives". They can continue to live their private lives exactly how they want.

No, they cannot get married. Something which does not affect anyone else but them in any posivitive or negative way. Shall we re-define the proposal to 'a white male and a white female'? It doesn't affect colored people in their private lives according to you.

And one of the core definitions and values of democracy is the "rule of the majority".

I hope that in the 21st century western democracies have become more than just the dictatorships of majority.

You can argue theology and religion and human rights all you want because those are personal beliefs but as a democratic process this worked as intended, it allowed the people, the society, to decide for themselves what they want to accept in their society.

The problem is that it was never a decision that should have been up to 'society' in the first place. Marriage is a private affair, not a public one. Even in a democracy what the majority wants should not always be law. It's unfortunate that so many cannot see this.

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

And one of the core definitions and values of democracy is the "rule of the majority". The majority have spoken and as a fundamental core value of democracy that decision should be embraced and accepted. Otherwise it is just as big a travesty that the millions and millions of people who voted for McCain don't get him as their President just because they were the minority.

You can argue theology and religion and human rights all you want because those are personal beliefs but as a democratic process this worked as intended, it allowed the people, the society, to decide for themselves what they want to accept in their society. Do we ignore democracy and the majority rule just because someone feels strongly that something should be one way or the other? Like or dislike the results this was democracy working as intended.

This is why constitutions and charters in most (all?) democratic countries have limited the power of governments by restricting majority rule away from human rights, such as the principles posted by Raskah. Majority rule is actually second place to respecting human rights in democracy.

It becomes especially relevant when we see the vote was only roughly 51% in favor of prop 8. So realistically its actually a tie, and yet, that slimmest of majority is allowed to dictate the rules for the other half? Freedom of religion/concience is one of the most basic human rights and the idea that one man + one woman = marriage is religious only, therefore it should never be forced on other people that do not agree.

 

[bassen]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

We are all humans, same flesh, same bones. You are me, and me are you. I think you know what I mean

 

[NoisemakerArrow]

And one of the core definitions and values of democracy is the "rule of the majority". The majority have spoken and as a fundamental core value of democracy that decision should be embraced and accepted. Do we ignore democracy and the majority rule just because someone feels strongly that something should be one way or the other? Like or dislike the results this was democracy working as intended.

Yet another American (probably) who doesn't know his country is a republic, not a democracy. Well, actually, it's a fascist dictatorship, but it was meant to be a republic. Take a look around the world. There is not a single democracy out there. That system died with Athens. And for good cause.

Do we ignore democracy and the majority rule just because someone feels strongly that blacks should attend the same schools as whites?

bassen, you mean I can have your accounts, right?

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Shall we re-define the proposal to 'a white male and a white female'? It doesn't affect colored people in their private lives according to you.

Really key point raised by stephan here. The arguments made now against same-sex marriage are the very same that were used to uphold anti-miscegenation laws, which were found in Loving V. Virginia to be unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Really, the only internally consistent position against same-sex marriage would include the belief that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided as well.

The amendment to the California state constitution is interesting because it now essentially defines three classes of people: a) opposite sex couples who are allowed to marry, b) same sex couples who are married, and c) same sex couples who cannot get married. It's a constitutional amendment that in itself is unconstitutional, and will most definitely be legally challenged and will probably go before the California Supreme Court, which has already ruled once on this. It's worth noting that Prop 8 is completely unprecedented in that it doesn't simply state that same-sex couples will never have the right to marry. Remember, same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June. In effect, Prop 8 is stripping rights from those who currently have them by writing discriminatory language into the state constitution.

I think that future generations will look at the passage of Prop 8 and ask the same question that current generations ask about anti-miscegenation laws: "What were they thinking?"

 

[bassen]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@noise - that not what I meant. However if you wish I would gladly give you some items, sure, why not?

I mean that we are all the same, the biggest diffrence between us is personalities but physical we are all the same pretty much. IIRC the DNA can vary by 1% from person to person.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Ok here's my take ...

1) I don't give a stuff about amendments, consititutions etc - I'm not an American. There are other countries out there who aren't America and they have the same debate. So I'm not going to hang my reasoning on that.

2) Social morals/acceptability is fluid. If we all stuck to what was acceptable right now, we'd be in a cave somewhere or being dragged around by our hair or being sold like sausage. Previous story of the moment from my sig.

3) I'll say up front, I don't believe in ANY marriage/civil unions. I think it's expensive to get into and hard to get out of. I don't believe you can say to someone "I will love you forever" because unless you're Dr Who you aren't able to say than and know it's true. You *can* say "I hope I will love you forever" but that isn't the 'agreement' so in my view it's not quite lying but it's an empty promise. I can see it being useful to keep surnames straight if there's children involved.

Given that I'm not interested, I don't actually care if you do it. It won't effect me so that's good and dandy. Whether you call it a marriage or a civil union again I don't care. But I feel it's bloody unfair to have to settle for the 'lesser' option because of a baseless opinion of a minority. Yes you think you're right, I think you're wrong but I'm not stopping you from doing anything now am I?

Let's be practical: why on earth are we producing two sets of paperwork, two sets of rules/regulations etc etc for the same thing. Isn't that a monumental waste of time and effort. Not to mention annoying the aforementioned people who want to say "I'm married to xxxxx" rather than "I have a legal contract with xxxxx"? That is a very different emphasis.

I have to say that while I understand why pre-nups exist, it is a contract and not something I'd be too chuffed to be given to me by my so called beloved. I'd be thinking "so you don't trust me enough/think I'm better than being a money grabbing so and so". Guess what they'd be having for dinner that night? A civil union might be better than a pre-nup, but it's still a contract and for those into this I can well understand why they see it as a 'poor mans option'.

Yes you can argue that if someone belongs to a group who says "we won't perform your wedding here because you're of the same sex", they would question whether they want to be a member and leave. That's fair enough; their building, they can do what they like. But what difference does it make to that group if it's called marriage rather than a union if it's held elsewhere? Not a thing. Not one.

I'm a fairly practical person and all I can see is a lot of extra work and effort for no return. Have one set of legal paperwork called marriage and then whatever 'blessings' you want elsewhere.

There's a time to stick your nose into people's private lives; when they're beating their wives, or spending their time drunk, or a molesting their kids. Arranging a marriage between two consenting adults, isn't one of them.

##

As a complete aside; if someone gets legally married but doesn't go through with a religious blessing, will that religion accept them as married? Because if not everyone better get their booty to various churches, temples, mosques etc to make sure they're totally tied good and proper. Mild sarcasm, but a valid point.

##

*waits for hate PM's*

 

[jjscud]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I was going to stay out of this but well, obviously I didn't.

IMHO, I see this as being painted too black and white.

There used to be even stricter laws about race, religion, and class for marrying. There are still laws about marrying cousins and multiple people. There are crazies out there who will want to marry their goat. A very real question that will likely come up in the near future may be marrying a computer program.

I think there clearly needs to be a line drawn somewhere, so the only question is where to draw it and who gets to decide where its drawn. There are lots of ways the line could be drawn, California chose popular decision and that seems like a fairly sensible choice.

 

[whommy]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It is categorically wrong for the law to discriminate between people on the basis of color, creed, sexual orientation, or anything else. In fact, it is not just wrong, it is illegal for the law to discriminate. That's why slavery is no longer legal, why all people have the right to vote, and why Prop 8 will inevitably be overturned by California's Supreme Court.

Beyond the question of legality, I have to say that I have seen no argument (and I've looked) in favor of discrimination that is not illogical, hypocritical, just plain dumb, or all of the above. Typically the problem with these arguments comes down to the fact that the morals/rules that people want to apply cannot be applied universally without necessarily rendering the arguer a hypocrite. If you want to quote the Bible, then you'd better live up to every one of its' commandments. If you want to cite the sanctity of marriage, then you don't need to look far to see that while there may be the occasional saintly union out there, the vast majority of marriages do not meet any sort of standards. Basically, you cannot sensibly argue that the law should discriminate. You can have personal feelings about anything you'd like, but there's a world of difference between feelings and the law.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Okay, I am not even going to come close to the topic of homosexual marriage, or religion. I have done it before here. I know people disagree with me, and I don't feel like devolving into a heated debate on that.

I would, however, like to make a few points on legality, constitutionality, etc.. And while many of you may not be from the U.S. since this was a proposition in the U.S. I feel that is the set of rules that matter in the specific, and will address a couple points that were made.

But in a country with (alleged) freedom of religion, I don't think allowing religious beliefs to influence government policy is ethical (or constitutional).

Individuals have the right to vote, or petition, or assemble based on their beliefs. What would be unconstitutional would be to allow someone to petition or vote based on their beliefs that they gain from just thinking about the idea, and not allowing someone to vote based on their religious principles. Individuals vote based on how they think, it doesn't matter where their stance originates, they have the right to vote based on it.

Cygnus- Emphasis mine. The point is that if marriage is considered a religious issue, government has no business regulating it.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the first ammendment. Your emphasized portion is about the government not establishing, or banning an establishment of religion. And, marriage isn't considered a religious issue according to statute and constitutional law, so the point is moot.

JRlAfrance-And for the most part, the government hasn't regulated it.

(referring to marriage).

Sorry, also not true. There are many statutes governing who, and when one can marry. There have also been numerous court decisions about the issue. And the absolute right to marry has been found to be a fundamental right by the Supreme court of the U.S.

Kannonfutter- So legal marriage between people of the same sex - opposed to religious marriage - is a definite must to me, judging from an equal rights standpoint.

This is, in my opinion, a vast misunderstanding of the legal meaning of equal rights. And, it points out why the legal definition of marriage is important.

Caly-The arguments made now against same-sex marriage are the very same that were used to uphold anti-miscegenation laws, which were found in Loving V. Virginia to be unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Really, the only internally consistent position against same-sex marriage would include the belief that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided as well.

Incredibly flawed legal reasoning Caly. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a fundamentally protected right, and that a state could not have a blanket bar against it. However, states are still constitutionally allowed to limit who and when one can marry. Again this hearkens back to the legal definition of marriage. In Loving v Virginia the clear legal definition is one man one woman (I maintain I will not get into the correctness of this statement, I have my opinion, and people who know me know what it is), however, Loving set forth that a state could not bar a man from marrying a woman based on their race, that is a clear 14th ammendment violation.

To claim that the only internally consistent position is to support anti-miscegination laws is, frankly, a straw man argument.

Caly-It's a constitutional amendment that in itself is unconstitutional, and will most definitely be legally challenged and will probably go before the California Supreme Court

Again, basic not understanding how the law works here. The court cannot overturn an ammendment.

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It is categorically wrong for the law to discriminate between people on the basis of color, creed, sexual orientation, or anything else. In fact, it is not just wrong, it is illegal for the law to discriminate. That's why slavery is no longer legal, why all people have the right to vote, and why Prop 8 will inevitably be overturned by California's Supreme Court.

I understand Prop 8 seeks a constitutional amendment, so the Supreme Court wouldn't have a say in it.

The whole thing came about because the Supreme Court struck down an earlier law banning same-sex marriage, which is why the proponents of that law decided to seek support for amending the constitution.

It's democratic all right (although the voting is reported to be sharply divided along racial lines), I just wish the people had chosen differently.

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This is a complete misunderstanding of the first ammendment. Your emphasized portion is about the government not establishing, or banning an establishment of religion. And, marriage isn't considered a religious issue according to statute and constitutional law, so the point is moot.

Then why ban it? What earthly reason does the government have to ban these marriages if religion had nothing to do with it. The whole point is that the only reason for the ban is that many people are against it because of religious reasons.

And according to your statement, creating a law at only a Christian could become President wouldn't be a violation of the first amendment because the government isn't establishing or banning an establishment of religion? IMO, it falls under "establishing a religion" in the sense of promoting it, same-sex marriages fall under the same category.

 

[Noodle]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Some thoughtful posts in this thread.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Then why ban it? What earthly reason does the government have to ban these marriages if religion had nothing to do with it. The whole point is that the only reason for the ban is that many people are against it because of religious reasons.

And according to your statement, creating a law at only a Christian could become President wouldn't be a violation of the first amendment because the government isn't establishing or banning an establishment of religion? IMO, it falls under "establishing a religion" in the sense of promoting it, same-sex marriages fall under the same category.

I didn't get into the ban or not to ban argument Cygnus, just the law, and the constitution. I'll let others talk about the whys. Suffice it to say, under the law, marriage has statutory significance, not just religious.

It wouldnt' be a violation of the establishment clause of the first ammendment, it would be a violation of other portions of the constitution which strictly spell out the requirements for president. It could also be argued to be a violation of the free excercise clause of the first ammendment, but that is a different beast than the establishment clause, and they refer to different restrictions on the government.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Incredibly flawed legal reasoning Caly. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a fundamentally protected right, and that a state could not have a blanket bar against it. However, states are still constitutionally allowed to limit who and when one can marry. Again this hearkens back to the legal definition of marriage. In Loving v Virginia the clear legal definition is one man one woman (I maintain I will not get into the correctness of this statement, I have my opinion, and people who know me know what it is), however, Loving set forth that a state could not bar a man from marrying a woman based on their race, that is a clear 14th ammendment violation.

If the state cannot bar a man from marrying a woman based on race, it cannot bar a man from marrying a man based on gender. They both violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

To claim that the only internally consistent position is to support anti-miscegination laws is, frankly, a straw man argument.

In what way is it a straw man, exactly? I've not misrepresented anyone's argument in order to strike it down more easily, I've simply stated that I believe that it's an inconsistent position to support interracial marriage while being against same-sex marriage, as the reasoning used to argue against both has historically been the same (both interracial and same-sex marriage have been argued against on the grounds that they are contrary to the word of God and will lead to the destruction of society). I do not believe it is an internally consistent position to support one and not the other. In fact I have known opponents of same-sex marriage who believe Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided and I understand that viewpoint and believe it to be consistent even while I wholly disagree with it.

Again, basic not understanding how the law works here. The court cannot overturn an ammendment.

Not quite accurate. This is actually a somewhat unprecedented legal scenario (though a similar thing happened in Colorado in Romer v. Evans) because the constitutional amendment that was passed can be interpreted to be in violation of the constitution it's amending. The legal challenges to Prop 8 are claiming that it's a revision of the constitution as opposed to an amendment, and a revision requires a two-thirds legislative vote rather than a simple majority (in other words, a ballot initiative is not enough to actually rewrite the constitution). If it's challenged on the right grounds it certainly can go before the California Supreme Court. There have already been several lawsuits filed on this. More info here, if you're curious.

 

[Kanonfutter]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I would like to hear why the people around in this thread are opposed to same-sex marriage on other reasons than religious.

Is a definition of marriage like this is acceptable:
A union of two consenting individuals to be treated as a family unit together with eventual children, adopted or otherwise, in matters of public affairs.

This definition is of course entirely open to same-sex marriages. I would like a definition that bars same-sex marriages for any reason that is not just to bar same-sex marriages.

 

[Starving_Poet]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

The premise of democracy is not that people make the right decisions, only that they're allowed to make them.