That's especially true for gay Americans who wish to have their partner immigrate. Immigration is a federal thing down here, and as long as they don't recognize SSM those couples won't have the right to live together.
Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage: Have the Floodgates Opened?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
That's especially true for gay Americans who wish to have their partner immigrate. Immigration is a federal thing down here, and as long as they don't recognize SSM those couples won't have the right to live together.
I'm talking about my vote as a citizen having an influence over legislation.
A4NoOb, here we are not talking of legislation, we are talking of fundamental human rights. You are right when you say that your vote should count, have an influence over legislation, that is how democracy works.
However, your vote (or mine for that matter), should not have any influence over whether slavery is legal, whether women have the right to vote, whether we have freedom of speech, freedom of worship etc. These are issues of fundamental human rights and as such proper purview of courts and legislatures.
SirJoseph thinks that as a citizen I don't have that right because politicians are morally superior or have some element that grants them that authority.
Again, you have the right to influence the legislation (e.g. what should be the driving age, what should be the income tax level etc.). You have no right to strip somebody of freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. by a majority vote. Similarly, you have no right to bring back slavery, take vote away from women, or forbid gays to marry.
Human rights are properly decided by courts and by legislatures, and not by mob rule. If we went by mob rule, majority rule, slavery would still be legal today.
A4NoOb, here we are not talking of legislation, we are talking of fundamental human rights. You are right when you say that your vote should count, have an influence over legislation, that is how democracy works.
However, your vote (or mine for that matter), should not have any influence over whether slavery is legal, whether women have the right to vote, whether we have freedom of speech, freedom of worship etc. These are issues of fundamental human rights and as such proper purview of courts and legislatures.
SirJoseph thinks that as a citizen I don't have that right because politicians are morally superior or have some element that grants them that authority.
Again, you have the right to influence the legislation (e.g. what should be the driving age, what should be the income tax level etc.). You have no right to strip somebody of freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. by a majority vote. Similarly, you have no right to bring back slavery, take vote away from women, or forbid gays to marry.
Human rights are properly decided by courts and by legislatures, and not by mob rule. If we went by mob rule, majority rule, slavery would still be legal today.
I think it is high time Congress passed a law, whereby if a state legalized gay marriage, then federal government also recognizes gay marriage, for that state only. Then as more and more states legalize gay marriage, those marriages will automatically be recognized at the federal level and gay couples will be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
Deny Freedom of Speech
Deny Freedom of Religion
Deny Fredom of the Press
Deny Women Suffrage
Deny Blacks Freedom
Deny Homosexual Men the Ability to Wed
One of these doesn't belong in the list.
An argument cannot be made for gay marriage on its own merits, therefore what the people behind the gay rights movement have done is to try and tie it to 'basic human rights' and equate it to the freedoms you mentioned. No one declared it a basic human right other than the gay movement. It is a ploy and a con to do that.
One of these doesn't belong in the list.
No one declared it a basic human right other than the gay movement. It is a ploy and a con to do that.
That is the question, isn’t it, RanchHand. Who decides what constitutes a basic, fundamental human right. Traditionally it has been decided by the courts and by legislatures, not by the people, not by mob rule.
Thus, courts declared that racial equality was a basic right when they handed down Brown vs. Board of Education, or they declared abortion to be a basic right when they handed down Roe vs. Wade.
Similarly, issue of women’s vote was decided by legislatures, when they passed the constitutional amendment. If at that time the issue had been put to a referendum to an all male voting public, do you really think they would have given women the right to vote? Fat chance.
Or if civil rights legislation had been put to a referendum in Alabama or Mississippi, do you really think that people would have approved it? Indeed, throughout history I cannot think of even one example where a majority approved in a referendum to give more rights to a minority.
So ultimately it comes down to, who decides what constitutes a fundamental right? I think it is the courts and the legislatures, not the people.
In Canada, courts said that gay marriage is a fundamental, right; they read it into the Charter. Same happened in Massachusetts, Iowa etc. In Vermont, the legislature legalized gay marriage. That is how it should be; issues of human rights should not be subjected to a 50%+1 referendum (as they do in California).
No one declared it a basic human right other than the gay movement. It is a ploy and a con to do that.
That is the question, isn’t it, RanchHand. Who decides what constitutes a basic, fundamental human right. Traditionally it has been decided by the courts and by legislatures, not by the people, not by mob rule.
Thus, courts declared that racial equality was a basic right when they handed down Brown vs. Board of Education, or they declared abortion to be a basic right when they handed down Roe vs. Wade.
Similarly, issue of women’s vote was decided by legislatures, when they passed the constitutional amendment. If at that time the issue had been put to a referendum to an all male voting public, do you really think they would have given women the right to vote? Fat chance.
Or if civil rights legislation had been put to a referendum in Alabama or Mississippi, do you really think that people would have approved it? Indeed, throughout history I cannot think of even one example where a majority approved in a referendum to give more rights to a minority.
So ultimately it comes down to, who decides what constitutes a fundamental right? I think it is the courts and the legislatures, not the people.
In Canada, courts said that gay marriage is a fundamental, right; they read it into the Charter. Same happened in Massachusetts, Iowa etc. In Vermont, the legislature legalized gay marriage. That is how it should be; issues of human rights should not be subjected to a 50%+1 referendum (as they do in California).
That is how many heterosexual men feel, Zzarchov. Lesbian sex is hot, and they want to watch it. Hence in many porn films, they include footage of lesbian sex.
But male homosexual sex is gross, filthy, perverted. Also, I think it threatens the masculinity of heterosexual males. That is why they are opposed to male homosexual sex, but not to lesbian sex.
What baloney is this? Marriage is a fundamental human right? Don't make me laugh, the ceremony of marriage is a privilege enjoyed by a man and a woman, who promote a proper environment for procreation (since procreating is one of our innate purposes as human beings). Allowing or disallowing other definitions of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental rights. I think you are heavily confused what should be considered a right (and I highly encourage you to read this before responding to me). A fundamental right, is specifically outlined in the Constitution (and I will for the moment, differentiate the strong and valued Constitution in America compared to the one Pierre Elliot Trudeau made). The Constitution does not shed light in any respect to marriage nor it's definition.
Thus the definition of marriage is held to the jurisdiction of the respective states. When it comes to defining marriage, there is no constitutional obligation to redefine it because the gay population is whining. If that was an imperative, then it should be mandatory for the government to accept all definitions of marriage. This is strictly assuming that the government has an obligation by the law to entitle gays to their "right". If it is their "right" to redefine marriage to their liking, then by default all other definitions should apply. Thus if the definition of marriage is "between two lovers" then it should also be "between three lovers" "four lovers" etc. This is why no politician has the authority to allow or disallow marriage definitions. That's just corruption. As freethinking people, the republic should decide on their own whether or not they wish to allow gay marriage. This same similar injustice happened in California when the supreme court ruled in favour of gay marriage, but the population disagreed.
YES YOU ARE RIGHT!! YOU WERE SO CLOSE- and then...
Once again, the privilege to marry is a privilege, not a right. If you disagree with me then I'd like to see a quote from the Constitution with the words "marriage" and "right".
You might have had a chance, A4nOb had you not said this:
"the ceremony of marriage is a privilege enjoyed by a man and a woman, who promote a proper environment for procreation."
After that point, you've pretty much killed any real reason against gay marriage that you might have.
Marriage isn't for procreation, not anymore. Procreation is just one of the offshoots of marriage - or before marriage even - but not the reason for it. Ask why most people get married nowadays, it's for love. And that is the reason for marriage and why no one has the "right" to deny it to gays.
"the ceremony of marriage is a privilege enjoyed by a man and a woman, who promote a proper environment for procreation."
After that point, you've pretty much killed any real reason against gay marriage that you might have.
Marriage isn't for procreation, not anymore. Procreation is just one of the offshoots of marriage - or before marriage even - but not the reason for it. Ask why most people get married nowadays, it's for love. And that is the reason for marriage and why no one has the "right" to deny it to gays.
Hello Serryah!:smile: Since you are no longer lurking, I would like to welcome you to CanadianContent!
Very nice first post. I am glad that things look like they will finally work out for you and your fiancee.:smile:
Cannuck: Then perhaps it should be said just what is a right and what isn't? To me it seems what one may claim is a right, others claim is not, so why not just clarify it.
Shadowshiv - thanks for the welcome.
Shadowshiv - thanks for the welcome.
So a man and a woman in love but without children don't have the privilege of marriage regardless of ceremony and legality?
What's more, I submit that Marriage is a vow to abide in an exclusive relationship between two people.
Seems there is a hole in your reasoning there.
Cannuck - the problem still stands; what others claim is a right, others say is not. Even the article mentions that there are some "rights" up for discussion as of yet. So, what is a right and what isn't? And, really, how do we make something a "right" and not a privilege?
The second article you posted I did go through, but for my own moral beliefs ignored it because it mentions things I highly disagree with.
If Marriage is not a right, but indeed a privilege, then why should anyone else be concerned if someone wants to have that privilege to marry another of the same sex? Right or privilege, it comes down to the same thing really; whose business is it of anyone elses?
The second article you posted I did go through, but for my own moral beliefs ignored it because it mentions things I highly disagree with.
If Marriage is not a right, but indeed a privilege, then why should anyone else be concerned if someone wants to have that privilege to marry another of the same sex? Right or privilege, it comes down to the same thing really; whose business is it of anyone elses?
Marriage was defined as a right when laws forbidden mixed marriage (racial) were viewed as a breach of rights.
If marriage is a privelage and not a right, then no matter how distasteful, laws against mixed race marriages would have been valid.
See Loving v. Virginia 1967.
If marriage is a privelage and not a right, then no matter how distasteful, laws against mixed race marriages would have been valid.
See Loving v. Virginia 1967.
I think marriage is a stupid, outdated social construct. My solution would be to abolish it as a government recognized institution. Let individuals call their relationships what they want. The government should have no place in it. There is no valid reason to encourage or discourage it anymore.
The problem is that everything is now interpretable as a 'right'... Consult any charter or constitution and you'll see that all of these rights exist to allow individuals to be individual.