now for something completely different

[spacecowgirl]

---

Members don't see this ad.

only people who are born here in the US should be called Americans. Immigrants should be called Immigrant Americans. They can have all the same rights as regular Americans but they they should be called something different to protect the definition of American.

 

[y0ssarian87]

Wow, so traditions must be bigotry. Can you even come up with a rational argument or just more name calling?

Since when is it the courts job to protect your traditions? They are there to protect people. If you want to call them civil unions as opposed to marriage, go ahead; no one is stopping you. That doesn't change what the court's job is.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

only people who are born here in the US should be called Americans. Immigrants should be called Immigrant Americans. They can have all the same rights as regular Americans but they they should be called something different to protect the definition of American.

Win. 👍

 

[eagles22]

You really know what the shame about this is? We'll probably have a non-ruling on both of these cases and the court will rule the parties involved didn't have standing to bring the suit. To be honest, I wouldn't blame the justices for taking the back door. History is harsh on those who support certain issues, and I can see them not wanting to be associated with making a controversial decision. We may need several more years and a few new justices to actually have a final say on gay marriage.

 

[rxlea]

only people who are born here in the US should be called Americans. Immigrants should be called Immigrant Americans. They can have all the same rights as regular Americans but they they should be called something different to protect the definition of American.

 

[xiphoid2010]

only people who are born here in the US should be called Americans. Immigrants should be called Immigrant Americans. They can have all the same rights as regular Americans but they they should be called something different to protect the definition of American.

Sorry that you don't know that they differentiate native born Americans and naturalized Americans right? They are different by legal definitions. And naturalized can't run for president for example.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Since when is it the courts job to protect your traditions? They are there to protect people. If you want to call them civil unions as opposed to marriage, go ahead; no one is stopping you. That doesn't change what the court's job is.

Nobody said it is. And we agree on that it is up to the supreme court to make that ruling. That does not mean it can not be debated outside of the court room. This topic is is hot all over the country right now because people understand the its history in the making whichever way the court rules.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You really know what the shame about this is? We'll probably have a non-ruling on both of these cases and the court will rule the parties involved didn't have standing to bring the suit. To be honest, I wouldn't blame the justices for taking the back door. History is harsh on those who support certain issues, and I can see them not wanting to be associated with making a controversial decision. We may need several more years and a few new justices to actually have a final say on gay marriage.

I hope not. I don't think the constitutionality of proposition 8 should be just dodged.

What is sad is that we have two sides of society that are hardliners. I get a lot of flack here for on the liberals, for advocating a compromised and pragmatic middle of the road/centrist setup. In a more conservative forum, I would probably be called a traitor for supporting equal rights for SSM.

 

[spacecowgirl]

Should there be middle ground when it comes to civil rights?

 

[pharmasaur]

We already got rid of the separate but equal thing in this country. Check out Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education. It's inherently unequal.

Besides, you've yet to articulate one singe, solitary benefit to using a different name. Does it save money? Prevent confusion? Is it a safety issue? Will all heterosexuals have to get divorced if homosexuals can marry? Will straight men be forced to marry a dude?

Honestly, you are coming off very badly here. It's as if you are a child who doesn't want to share his toys, and doesn't even want another child to have the same toy, even if it's a new one bought especially for that child. Your statement about people having to ask if you are married to a women or a man is telling, I think. 👎

sooo true. You just don't want to share. Why? Because you, deep inside and are not admitting it on this forum, are a homophobe and you don't want them to be associated with you in any way. When people don't want to share something, it's because they don't understand where the other is coming from and they don't see that the person is in the same situation as them and wanting the same things. You just don't UNDERSTAND gay people because if you did, you wouldn't be here arguing. The same way a hungry chimp doesn't share its food with another hungry chimp because they have no sense that the animal across from them is feeling the same thing they are. You just don't understand. You have lost a lot of respect on this forum.

 

[Fatpharm]

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."
― Rick Warren

 

[npage148]

Yeah, Rick Warren is a man we should all look to for advice 🙄

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Yeah, Rick Warren is a man we should all look to for advice 🙄

Next someone will post this: "I love gays. I have gay friends. My hairdresser is gay. I love them and I pray for them everyday. Love the sinner, hate the sin." 🙄

 

[pharmasaur]

 

[spacecowgirl]

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."
― Rick Warren

You know what is nonsense? That you think discrimination is the same as "disagreement". This quote is in no way applicable.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Should there be middle ground when it comes to civil rights?

Equal protection under the law is civil rights. Is it not? What we disagree on is the legal term/definition, eg, men and women have the same civil rights but differ in legal definition. As a centrist I think this would be a good setup that both liberals and conservatives can work with.

 

[eagles22]

Equal protection under the law is civil rights. Is it not? What we disagree on is the legal term/definition, eg, men and women have the same civil rights but differ in legal definition. As a centrist I think this would be a good setup that both liberals and conservatives can work with.

Using a different term/legal definition/euphemism inherently causes the two things to be different. Why have two names for an apple?

 

[zelman]

Equal protection under the law is civil rights. Is it not? What we disagree on is the legal term/definition, eg, men and women have the same civil rights but differ in legal definition. As a centrist I think this would be a good setup that both liberals and conservatives can work with.

How long do you suppose it will take to change every law and corporate policy that has the word "married/marriage" in it? Keep in mind that laws are still on the books that prevent riding horses on Main St. on Sundays in some localities or carrying ice cream cones in your back pocket. Your two term proposal is impractical at best.

 

[BenJammin]

Not everything you disdain as a law has to be unconstitutional. Marriage is not an equal protection case for gender because gay marriage has nothing to do with gender. A straight man cannot marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. Until sexual orientation is considered a class by the feds and the courts, this argument falls through the cracks. You can't make a parallel to Rosa Parks because that equal protection applies to RACE.

 

[spacecowgirl]

How long do you suppose it will take to change every law and corporate policy that has the word "married/marriage" in it? Keep in mind that laws are still on the books that prevent riding horses on Main St. on Sundays in some localities or carrying ice cream cones in your back pocket. Your two term proposal is impractical at best.

It's a very fiscally responsible suggestion, isn't it? From people who laud fiscal responsibility.

 

[littleowl]

I have no idea how it could be stated that homosexuality is a "new phenomenon" when our own government is based on ideas established by the most successful empire in human history. That very same empire was not only tolerant of same-sex relationships but in many cases encouraged them. The word "marriage" from a legal standpoint is considered a term for a social contract between two people (notice there is no specification as to the gender of those two people) for the purpose of establishing rights and obligations to the other person. I'm unsure how that could threaten the "sanctity" of an antiquated version of the word marriage considering the term is not defined for religious purposes. Also the same "marriage" in religious context would prevent any type of divorce, a practice that was established by a bratty British monarch when he tired of a politically arranged marriage and desired someone who made his pulse race. So by your own argument, divorces should never be granted either even though 50% of Americans are doing it every year with the government's consent.

 

[y0ssarian87]

Not everything you disdain as a law has to be unconstitutional. Marriage is not an equal protection case for gender because gay marriage has nothing to do with gender. A straight man cannot marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. Until sexual orientation is considered a class by the feds and the courts, this argument falls through the cracks. You can't make a parallel to Rosa Parks because that equal protection applies to RACE.

In employment law, sexual orientation discrimination falls under sex discrimination. The concept behind it is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is based on trying to maintain specific gender roles and expectations. See Veretto v USPS.

 

[y0ssarian87]

Not everything you disdain as a law has to be unconstitutional. Marriage is not an equal protection case for gender because gay marriage has nothing to do with gender. A straight man cannot marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. Until sexual orientation is considered a class by the feds and the courts, this argument falls through the cracks. You can't make a parallel to Rosa Parks because that equal protection applies to RACE.

Edit: double post deleted. My apologies. Shoddy Internet at the moment.

 

[ucrx]

you insist it's discriminatory, when I see it as insisting calling apples oranges.

Why do I have a problem? That's a part of my marriage and identity. How would you like it if all the sudden people has to ask if you got a woman or man as a wife? Sorry, go get a new name of your own. There is plenty of chairs around, but this one's taken.

I want to know what makes same sex marriage different from heterosexual marriage besides the "parts."

Also, I'm curious people's arguments away from constitutionally. Even if you don't believe that same sex marriage is protected/provided/whatever by the constitution, do you think that there is any reason it shouldn't be legal (by whatever means we end up getting there)?

Agree w/moving to lounge... it's hard to stay out of this thread as something that could affect me personally and as Lea said, it's tiring to hear how I'm wrong for who I'm attracted to etc.

 

[eagles22]

Not everything you disdain as a law has to be unconstitutional. Marriage is not an equal protection case for gender because gay marriage has nothing to do with gender. A straight man cannot marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. Until sexual orientation is considered a class by the feds and the courts, this argument falls through the cracks. You can't make a parallel to Rosa Parks because that equal protection applies to RACE.

It took an amendment and a court ruling almost a hundred years later to make race a fully protected quality. Gender was fully protected in 1919. In 1990 it was no longer OK to discriminate based on physical ability. Sexuality was fully protected in _____. Just because they weren't legally protected does not make it morally acceptable that they were discriminated against.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Using a different term/legal definition/euphemism inherently causes the two things to be different. Why have two names for an apple?

Could the different definitions being debated in the supreme court due to a sound argument that there a difference exists and require a court ruling one way or another? Do not confuse the constitutional right to equal protection with differences in names. Sometimes its related, other times they are not.

 

[eagles22]

Could the different definitions being debated in the supreme court due to a sound argument that there a difference exists and require a court ruling one way or another? Do not confuse the constitutional right to equal protection with differences in names. Sometimes its related, other times they are not.

And that sound argument is?

 

[spacecowgirl]

I want to know how people who support smaller government think it's ok for the government to be involved in sex life of 2 consenting adults. The government is only too big when your rights are at stake. That hypocrisy needs to be acknowledged.

 

[spacecowgirl]

And that sound argument is?

expect crickets. What it all comes down to is that some people think gay sex is icky. Which is fine really because you don't have to have gay sex if you don't want to just because gay marriage is legal. 👍

 

[xiphoid2010]

And that sound argument is?

Men and women by definition are different, are they not? So why is it not a sound argument that a union of the opposite the sex is therefore different than one of the same sex?

 

[BenJammin]

It took an amendment and a court ruling almost a hundred years later to make race a fully protected quality. Gender was fully protected in 1919. In 1990 it was no longer OK to discriminate based on physical ability. Sexuality was fully protected in _____. Just because they weren't legally protected does not make it morally acceptable that they were discriminated against.

I never said it was morally acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals, just that it was legal to do so. Again, you don't have to support everything you find to be legal.

 

[y0ssarian87]

Could the different definitions being debated in the supreme court due to a sound argument that there a difference exists and require a court ruling one way or another? Do not confuse the constitutional right to equal protection with differences in names. Sometimes its related, other times they are not.

According to the majority ruling in 9th circuit court of appeals in the prop 8 case, the word "marriage" gives "societal status that affords dignity to those relationships", and it doesn't matter that all rights were equal otherwise. The justice majority cited Romer v. Evans, saying, "Romer...controls where a privilege or protection is withdrawn without a legitimate reason from a class of disfavored individuals, even if that right may not have been required by the Constitution in the first place." The dissent, however did bring up a good point and said that it doesn't matter if the law were motivated in part by "animus", because there is rational basis. The majority justice disagreed on the proposition having rational basis, and this is still an issue with the case. In addition, many recent cases have increased the scrutiny required for sexual orientation cases. Some treat these as suspect class issues.

I personally believe that rational basis doesn't hold in sexual orientation cases (in particular this case), let alone strict scrutiny. I also believe that at present the word marriage affords dignity to relationships, and denying that dignity to gay couples infringes on the minority rights despite legal rights being equal. Thus the word marriage must be used to afford the same dignity and rights to gay and straight couples.

 

[ucrx]

Could the different definitions being debated in the supreme court due to a sound argument that there a difference exists and require a court ruling one way or another?

The supreme court also ruled regarding interracial marriage. Does that mean that there is a difference between traditional marriage and interracial marriage?

 

[y0ssarian87]

I never said it was morally acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals, just that it was legal to do so. Again, you don't have to support everything you find to be legal.

This is incorrect. Discrimination based on sexual orientation can only be done if it stands scrutiny, ranging from rational basis to strict scrutiny. It is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This is based off of judicial precedent, despite it not being worded as "sexual orientation".

 

[xiphoid2010]

The supreme court also ruled regarding interracial marriage. Does that mean that there is a difference between traditional marriage and interracial marriage?

So you think you can interpret the law better than the supreme court? I'm gonna bet you get it wrong way more than they do.

 

[xiphoid2010]

How long do you suppose it will take to change every law and corporate policy that has the word "married/marriage" in it? Keep in mind that laws are still on the books that prevent riding horses on Main St. on Sundays in some localities or carrying ice cream cones in your back pocket. Your two term proposal is impractical at best.

It's a very fiscally responsible suggestion, isn't it? From people who laud fiscal responsibility.

So by your line of reasoning, we should ban SSM in the 9 states since it's way cheaper to uphold the existing law in the 41 states where SSM is illegal?

Poor argument gets an poor solution.

 

[xiphoid2010]

what I find disheartening is the hardline that liberals and conservatives are both taking. Nobody is interested in the centrist position. I was talking about this with my wife who is a conservative, and one of the first thing she said to me was "you are a christian, you know you have to oppose this right?" This hardline, end of spectrum argument is the same kind of thinking I see here amongst the liberals.

One of the real possibility that the supreme court may decide is: marriage laws has been and is a state right, and refuse to get involved. I want to ask both hardline liberals and conservatives, "then what?" Each state will review and vote its own laws, and the same arguments will play out 50 times. With the country's opinion almost evenly divided, then more likely than not, the far left and the far right won't have the votes by themselves. Refusing to come to agreement with each other towards the middle will get you nothing other than the continuation of the current law (which 41 states bans SSM). Are the rights and gays and lesbians better protected then?

As a centrist, I argue for a moderate, rational and practical legal framework that grants both equal protections to same sex couples and definition/identity of marriage tradition. If you find this proposal offensive, try to imagine what your counterpart in the opposite end of the spectrum has to offer. To make changes and pass new laws, you are going to need the moderate/centrist votes, so the end result is probably going to be towards the middle.

 

[y0ssarian87]

what I find disheartening is the hardline that liberals and conservatives are both taking. Nobody is interested in the centrist position. I was talking about this with my wife who is a conservative, and one of the first thing she said to me was "you are a christian, you know you have to oppose this right?" This hardline, end of spectrum argument is the same kind of thinking I see here amongst the liberals.

One of the real possibility that the supreme court may decide is: marriage laws has been and is a state right, and refuse to get involved. I want to ask both hardline liberals and conservatives, "then what?" Each state will review and vote its own laws, and the same arguments will play out 50 times. With the country's opinion almost evenly divided, then more likely than not, the far left and the far right won't have the votes by themselves. Refusing to come to agreement with each other towards the middle will get you nothing other than the continuation of the current law (which 41 states bans SSM). Are the rights and gays and lesbians better protected then?

As a centrist, I argue for a moderate, rational and practical legal framework that grants both equal protections to same sex couples and definition/identity of marriage tradition. If you find this proposal offensive, try to imagine what your counterpart in the opposite end of the spectrum has to offer. To make changes and pass new laws, you are going to need the moderate/centrist votes, so the end result is probably going to be towards the middle.

I find the propositions you've mentioned to be a lose-lose compromise. Left leaning individuals will see this treatment as unequal, and right leaning individuals will see this as the road to the dissolution of marriage and traditional values. And they are both right. It isn't a solution that will persist and will only allow the debate to continue harder.

The reason each side feels so strongly is because this question asks us to reflect our values and our values for others. It's unreasonable to expect people to look at this kind of issue from a moderate perspective. As a gay male, I find this to be so significant. The impact this case has on society's attitude toward gays and lesbians cannot be understated. I want to be viewed as an equal. I did not choose who I am attracted to, and having lesser dignity in the realm of marriage is not something I will settle for. How can you ask me to be okay with being seen as unequal?

 

[littleowl]

What you are suggesting is a contextually modified version of the "separate but equal" theme. This alone suggests that the group being assigned a new term for an already existing institution is somehow not qualified to reside in the same category as those who subscribe to the already existing label. That is where the word "discrimination" is important. Why bother with outlining a distinction between an apple and an orange when they are both, in fact, fruit? No new terms required.

 

[zelman]

So by your line of reasoning, we should ban SSM in the 9 states since it's way cheaper to uphold the existing law in the 41 states where SSM is illegal?

Poor argument gets an poor solution.

The fact that your solution is terrible is not negated by suggesting a worse one.

Example: Come on guys! It's either gay people can't get married, or we have to all become cannibals! You don't want to be cannibals, do you?

The simple truth is that logic cannot be used to get someone out of a belief they used non-logic to get into. Your opinion will not change based on anything anyone who is not the pope says. The popular opinion will be mine once your generation has died off.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I find the propositions you've mentioned to be a lose-lose compromise. Left leaning individuals will see this treatment as unequal, and right leaning individuals will see this as the road to the dissolution of marriage and traditional values. And they are both right. It isn't a solution that will persist and will only allow the debate to continue harder.

The reason each side feels so strongly is because this question asks us to reflect our values and our values for others. It's unreasonable to expect people to look at this kind of issue from a moderate perspective. As a gay male, I find this to be so significant. The impact this case has on society's attitude toward gays and lesbians cannot be understated. I want to be viewed as an equal. I did not choose who I am attracted to, and having lesser dignity in the realm of marriage is not something I will settle for. How can you ask me to be okay with being seen as unequal?

Oh, but you are equal. You can marry a woman, just like straight men can. And maybe you should: 😉 Warning for NSFWish language.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ucrx]

So you think you can interpret the law better than the supreme court? I'm gonna bet you get it wrong way more than they do.

Not at all. There is know way I know the law even close to the extent the supreme court does. Your argument was that the supreme court is debating same sex marriage, THEREFORE IT IS DIFFERENT. I'm saying that that argument is invalid, using their decision regarding interracial marriage as an example.

You still haven't given a good explanation as to how same sex and opposite sex marriage are different.

ETA: To me, it seems that your argument is "I don't want same sex marriage to be called the same thing because I don't think they've earned it (your term) like I have."

 

[ucrx]

Oh, but you are equal. You can marry a woman, just like straight men can. And maybe you should: 😉 Warning for NSFWish language.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8[/YOUTUBE]

I love that video and it's responses. Also search "gay women will marry your boyfriends."

 

[y0ssarian87]

Oh, but you are equal. You can marry a woman, just like straight men can. And maybe you should: 😉 Warning for NSFWish language.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8[/YOUTUBE]

Haha, I love that video. Too funny!

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I love that video and it's responses. Also search "gay women will marry your boyfriends."

Yes, that one is funny too. And the "straight men's response."

"Your new husband Francisco will be taking you to the opera."

 

[universalcynic]

Damn, it's just so weird that people are even still arguing over this in the 21st century. Sometimes I find myself wishing I was born one or two hundred years further into the future when society will have finally gotten its act together about things like this.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Your opinion will not change based on anything anyone who is not the pope says. The popular opinion will be mine once your generation has died off.

LOL, I'm not catholic. And my generation die off? I'm probably within 10 years of you. Being a moderate doesn't make one old.

 

[y0ssarian87]

LOL, I'm not catholic. And my generation die off? I'm probably within 10 years of you. Being a moderate doesn't make one old.

I don't think he said you would die before him. He said that by the time you die (and possibly him and possibly me), his views will likely be in the majority. That is, even in your lifetime you'll see the drastic shift in popular opinion. I don't think he was trying to be rude, just trying to create an impact in his statement.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I find the propositions you've mentioned to be a lose-lose compromise. Left leaning individuals will see this treatment as unequal, and right leaning individuals will see this as the road to the dissolution of marriage and traditional values. And they are both right. It isn't a solution that will persist and will only allow the debate to continue harder.

The reason each side feels so strongly is because this question asks us to reflect our values and our values for others. It's unreasonable to expect people to look at this kind of issue from a moderate perspective. As a gay male, I find this to be so significant. The impact this case has on society's attitude toward gays and lesbians cannot be understated. I want to be viewed as an equal. I did not choose who I am attracted to, and having lesser dignity in the realm of marriage is not something I will settle for. How can you ask me to be okay with being seen as unequal?

I can understand your beliefs are different, and I think you should have have equal rights. But toeing a hardline the same way that your opposites is just going to get a deadlock.

Hardline stances that my beliefs trumps others is what leads to killing over religions, philosophy, wars. Rational behavior is to come to a workable framework.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I don't think he said you would die before him. He said that by the time you die (and possibly him and possibly me), his views will likely be in the majority. That is, even in your lifetime you'll see the drastic shift in popular opinion. I don't think he was trying to be rude, just trying to create an impact in his statement.

I don't really care what he meant by "your generation", it's meaningless when talking about political stance anyway.

Politics do change, but not always to what you expect. Liberalism and conservatism comes into fashion at one time or another. If rather wait for years and hope for things to change your way down the road, then that's an option. But how does the price of having nothing for now compare to have a middle ground solution now and then waiting to see if more change comes along the way you want down the road? That would appear to be the more rational move. But I don't have hardline beliefs as either end of the political spectrum on this issue.