Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage: Have the Floodgates Opened?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
JLM,
The core issue at the heart of this debate has to do with the contention that the 'rights' of one specific group are being violated. The fact is that marriage is not a basic human right, it is an age old practice that has (over time) been recognized by governments.
In terms of the discrimination label that is being leveled, that is simply a reality in today's world. Discrimination occurs on all levels and reflects the differences between people be they socio-economic, physical, gender-based, life-style, etc...
Guess it depends on whether it's to be done democratically or not. Courts and legislatures are too arbitrary. How the "orginal" definition was done is irrelevent and I'm not sure there is a way of finding oukt.
JLM, courts and legislatures are very much part of democracy. I know some posters here consider democracy to be the system where absolutely everything (including whether slavery should be legal etc.) is decided by the majority. That Is not my definition of democracy.
There are at least three aspects to democracy (there may be more). There is the election, where people elect the government and legislatures. Then there are legislatures who enact the laws. They may not always vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority, though they do many times.
Then there are courts, which are not concerned with what majority thinks at all, but what the constitution says. These are all components of a democracy.
How the "orginal" definition was done is irrelevent and I'm not sure there is a way of finding oukt.
Sure there is a way of finding out; nothing was ever put to referendum on the old days.
Oh boy SirJoseph. I suppose the difference between you and me is crystal clear. When you look at arguments (like the one Jason Keeny used, I don't know him), it is the public response which wavers your opinion, not the merit. I suppose calling my argument "ridiculous" has no merit when you bring an analogy that is completely irrelevant to this situation. It makes me question whether you have a true grasp of our rights and freedoms.
What you highlighted in your fictional world is completely separate from marriage because of one crucial word: "MUST". Where at all in marriage legislations do you see "People MUST marry an opposite sex at least once in their life time"? Since when is the act of marriage obligatory? No one is forcing gays to do anything.
Taken that into account, marriage is a privilege. This is something you agreed on. The nature of privileges is that it will always discriminate. If gay couples are granted their definition of marriage, then what about three people wanting to marry? Isn't that discrimination against polygamists? What about two people both underage who want to marry? The same applies to any other privilege. Why are there no blind cops? Isn't that discriminatory to the blind population that want to join the police force?
In your argument, you did nothing to say marriage was in fact discriminatory. All you did was claim the "intent" is discriminatory which even then doesn't make sense. Gays have the full capacity to engage in the act of marriage. There is no provision to prevent that. That being said, enabling gay marriage is not something for "moral experts" because this is not a moral issue. This is a democratic issue which should be resolved with the vote of the population.
"There are at least three aspects to democracy (there may be more)."- YEP, "of the people, by the people, for the people" and THAT requires a vote.
I love the whole "Gays can too marry! They can marry someone of the opposite sex!"
Does anyone know how truly "wrong" that is to a gay person?
It'd be as "wrong" as if we told heterosexuals to marry those of the same sex when their preference is the opposite.
To use that as an excuse against gay marriage is, in my opinion (and this isn't to insult anyone), showing severe indecency on the part of the person suggesting it and a lack of what marriage - now - is supposed to be for.
Does anyone know how truly "wrong" that is to a gay person?
It'd be as "wrong" as if we told heterosexuals to marry those of the same sex when their preference is the opposite.
To use that as an excuse against gay marriage is, in my opinion (and this isn't to insult anyone), showing severe indecency on the part of the person suggesting it and a lack of what marriage - now - is supposed to be for.
If gay couples are granted their definition of marriage, then what about three people wanting to marry? Isn't that discrimination against polygamists? What about two people both underage who want to marry?
A4NoOB, these are all separate issues and must be considered one on one basis. As to polygamy, no doubt it will be tested in the courts at some stage. While I am opposed to polygamy, we will see what courts say about it, when time comes. I think probability is high that courts will rule polygamy unconstitutional (I think it violates the equality provision of the Charter).
As to underage people (children) wanting to marry, I don’t think there is any prohibition on it in the constitution per se. That is something decided by the society, and something for the Parliament to decide. If ever there is a challenge to ban on underage marriage (which I think is extremely unlikely), I think courts will probably say that the constitution is silent on the subject and Parliament may do as it wishes.
Anyway, these are separate issues can cannot be lumped together with gay marriage.
This is something you agreed on. The nature of privileges is that it will always discriminate.
I agree, and marriage does discriminate against many people. Thus one may not marry ones sister, one’s father etc. Underage marriages are not permitted. Polygamy is not permitted.
The problem arises when discrimination does not serve any useful purpose, but exists simply because of social prejudices and biases. It is for the courts to decide when discrimination serves useful purpose (as it does where one is forbidden to marry one’s brother or sister) or when it is just because of the prejudices or biases of the society. Courts have decided that discriminating against gays in this instance serves no useful purpose and I agree.
A4NoOB, these are all separate issues and must be considered one on one basis. As to polygamy, no doubt it will be tested in the courts at some stage. While I am opposed to polygamy, we will see what courts say about it, when time comes. I think probability is high that courts will rule polygamy unconstitutional (I think it violates the equality provision of the Charter).
As to underage people (children) wanting to marry, I don’t think there is any prohibition on it in the constitution per se. That is something decided by the society, and something for the Parliament to decide. If ever there is a challenge to ban on underage marriage (which I think is extremely unlikely), I think courts will probably say that the constitution is silent on the subject and Parliament may do as it wishes.
Anyway, these are separate issues can cannot be lumped together with gay marriage.
This is something you agreed on. The nature of privileges is that it will always discriminate.
I agree, and marriage does discriminate against many people. Thus one may not marry ones sister, one’s father etc. Underage marriages are not permitted. Polygamy is not permitted.
The problem arises when discrimination does not serve any useful purpose, but exists simply because of social prejudices and biases. It is for the courts to decide when discrimination serves useful purpose (as it does where one is forbidden to marry one’s brother or sister) or when it is just because of the prejudices or biases of the society. Courts have decided that discriminating against gays in this instance serves no useful purpose and I agree.
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
The White House - Press Office - Presidential Proclamation - LGBT Pride Month
The White House - Press Office - Presidential Proclamation - LGBT Pride Month
You dug up this old chestnut again, did you? Yes, I saw that on television. Good for Obama.
Anyway, since we discussed the thread, Maine has legalized gay marriage. In New Hampshire it is bogged down. Both senate and House have passed it, but the governor is holding back, because he wants more protection for the churches in the bill. Which sounds reasonable to me, I don’t know why the House is balking at the provision.
I think the churches should be protected in the strongest possible terms. I hope they come to some sort of compromise in New Hampshire. I think just yesterday or day before Nevada legalized same sex unions (which came as quite a surprise to me).
The march of civil rights is slow and takes decades. But progress is being made, slowly.
Anyway, since we discussed the thread, Maine has legalized gay marriage. In New Hampshire it is bogged down. Both senate and House have passed it, but the governor is holding back, because he wants more protection for the churches in the bill. Which sounds reasonable to me, I don’t know why the House is balking at the provision.
I think the churches should be protected in the strongest possible terms. I hope they come to some sort of compromise in New Hampshire. I think just yesterday or day before Nevada legalized same sex unions (which came as quite a surprise to me).
The march of civil rights is slow and takes decades. But progress is being made, slowly.