Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Holy smokes, are you under the impression that all states have the same laws? Me? No. But in the case of marriage it would be asinine for each state to have their own laws - hell, if you want examples of this look at the race laws and how much trouble they were. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Isn't the current solution of stating in the constitution that the government will not recognize the same sex marriage a stamp of disapproval? It seems to me, for your point to be valid, the government shouldn't have formally stated anything. Well, to not approve is pretty close to disapprove, so I guess so. The reason it was stated in the constitution was because there is a push to legalize it, so that was a counter reaction to make sure it didn't happen. Also one state normally recognizes marriages performed in another state, so that's the other reason for the amendment. By stating in the constitution an explicit and deliberate viewpoint that the governments of Texas will not recognize it is more than simply "not approving" it. It put up a constitutional barrier to it. In doing so, the state has defined that same sex marriages are, in fact, different, and not worthy of the entitlements and recognition of a heterosexual marriage. It's institutional and systemic discrimination for the government to explicitly state that a group of individuals will not be recognized the same way as a different group of individuals, in spite of performing the same acts. Edited November 19, 2009 by alanschu
Enoch Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Holy smokes, are you under the impression that all states have the same laws? Me? No. But in the case of marriage it would be asinine for each state to have their own laws - hell, if you want examples of this look at the race laws and how much trouble they were. States already have different marriage laws-- requirements to get a blood test, filing fees, parental consent requirements for the underage, the degree of relationship that constitutes incest, rules for inheritance of property, rules for the custody of children, rules for separation and divorce proceedings, etc. Personally, I have little doubt that bans on gay marriage will be pretty universally considered unconstitutional 30 years from now. But the lesson that the Supreme Court has learned from the abortion wars is that it does not want to be the institution leading public opinion on issues like this.
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) @alanschu I haven't said anything to the contrary, although your claim of "the same acts" is debatable. Edited November 19, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 @alanschuI haven't said anything to the contrary, although your claim of "the same acts" is debatable. It's debatable that two people getting married is the same as two other people getting married? It's only debatable if you think that a black marrying a white is different than two white people marrying each other. The act we're discussing here, is marriage. Two people getting married. If you make constitutional distinctions between same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage, the government is telling people that it feels gay marriage is different. Since the only component of gay marriage that is different from heterosexual marriage is the participants of said marriage, it implies that homosexuals are different enough in such a way that, constitutionally speaking, they do not deserve to have their marriage validated and recognized to the same degree that a heterosexual marriage does. You may not have said anything to the contrary, but given how quick you are to discuss and go on about political issues you don't agree with, including political discussions not even involving your state, in addition to concerns about compromising the freedoms and rights of individuals, I'm rather surprised you haven't actively spoken out against the Texas amendment. Although you have danced around the issue quite well.
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 What makes you think I'm against the Texas amendment? "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 What makes you think I'm against the Texas amendment? Nothing does. In fact, it seems pretty clear you are in favour of it. However, given your previous posts throughout the forum regarding the freedoms/liberties and rights of people, and a general discourse on goverments not getting involved in the lives, I was making an assumption that you wouldn't support legislation that explicitly discriminates against a group of people.
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I support discrimination against some groups, like bigamists for example. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 A common culture means something, laws reflect that culture, I'm not a libertarian. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Gfted1 Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I never understood why bigamy was illegal. Seriously, who cares? The poor bastard is getting a worse punishment anyway, lol. I kid, I kid, marriage is a wonderful institution. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 A common culture means something, laws reflect that culture... Why should that be the case? "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 A common culture means something, laws reflect that culture, I'm not a libertarian. So you feel that by the state actively expressing that same sex marriage will not be recognized is a way to protect your culture?
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Yes. I kind of see where you want to take this, but I'm not sure it's going to result in anything positive. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not taking it anywhere, I asked my question and you answered it.
Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Yes. And why is homosexual marriage so threatening? "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 It's not threatening, it's not something we want to show approval of. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 It's not threatening, it's not something we want to show approval of. Why? "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) . Edited November 19, 2009 by alanschu
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Let's not go there, as I said it's not going to result in anything positive. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 . Huh? "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Deadly_Nightshade Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Let's not go there... No, let's go there. If you're going to openly support discrimination you should at least try to say why you're doing so. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
alanschu Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) . Huh? I made a post and changed my mind about keeping it there. It was just a question in a similar vein to yours regarding culture. Edited November 19, 2009 by alanschu
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 He's an upper class white heterosexual male, of course he feels threatened by gay, poor and coloured people.
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Let's not go there... No, let's go there. If you're going to openly support discrimination you should at least try to say why you're doing so. Heh, you can't make me answer. Edit: He's an upper class white heterosexual male, of course he feels threatened by gay, poor and coloured people. What makes you think I'm upper class or white? Edited November 19, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now