The first gay president

[Gorth]

As a perpetual single, I find this entire marriage/civil union institution disgusting and discriminating and should abolished altogether in the name of freedom and equality. Just sayin'

 

[Orogun01]

As a perpetual single, I find this entire marriage/civil union institution disgusting and discriminating and should abolished altogether in the name of freedom and equality. Just sayin'

But without marriage how would we trade our daughters for camels and poultry? Our livelihood depends on it.

[Nepenthe]

The majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions, its when you have to call it "marriage" that things get all sideways. I can kind of see their point, civil unions provide all the same benefits of marriage yet thats not good enough and people have to push their agenda on others and try to usurp what is a religous ceremony.

I kind of agree with you here, I personally don't think marriage should be legislated at all, kind of like in France (where to marry, a couple undergoes the civil ceremony required by law conducted by the mayor and, if they so choose, a religious ceremony of their choice.) I've dealt with the opposite problem in heterosexual unions, where hardcore feminists refuse to marry yet insist that there should be something that is essentially the same without the label.

[Guard Dog]

Marriage is just a word. Nobody should claim ownership over a word. When you get right down to brass tacks the institution of marriage is a legal contract between two consenting individuals. How some one (or a state government for that matter) can be in favor of civil unions but not marriage escapes me because the two are pretty much the same thing once you remove the word marriage.

 

That said, the President was correct when he stated it is up to the individual states to determine because the regulation and enforcement of contracts is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Nor should it be. It is not a civil rights issue because no one is stopping a gay man or worman from getting married, just not in the way they like. So far some states are allowing it, some are not. I think the trend to allow will continue and in ten years no one will remember why there was so much resistance to the idea to begin with but they will not be forced into it. If a gay couple want to get married I'd say just do it in a state that allows it.

 

Churches may never come around. Some have but most have not and that is unfortunate because the one thing I know for sure is that God loves gay folks every bit as much as everyone else. It is absurd for one human to tell another what they are doing is a sin. If it is then that is between that person and God and no business of anyone else. It is not up to us to cast moral judgements on the other humans in the world. I'm certain I remember reading that in a certain book of Christian reknown. That said no church should ever be compelled to recognize or perform gay marriges even when the rest of the country does come around. They deserve their freedom too.

 

You have all heard me say it many times. The single most important thing in the world is individual liberty. If you are opposed to gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. Don't attend their wedding, don't send them a gift, etc. But it does not harm you one bit if they do get married so why shoudn't they? We all deserve the freedom to live our lives in the way that suits us best, and as long as they are happy and not hurting anyone else, why does anyone care if they get married?

 

The biggest problem in this world is too many people seem to believe they know best how everyone else should be living their lives. It would be a much happier world if we all just left each other alone.

 

Just my $.02

Edited May 16, 2012 by Guard Dog

[Humodour]

It is not a civil rights issue because no one is stopping a gay man or worman from getting married, just not in the way they like.

 

But it becomes a civil rights issue because married couples are afforded more rights by the state than non-married couples, no? In the case of straight people, you could argue this doesn't matter, because they have the choice to marry and receive those extra rights or not. But in the case of gay people, they have no such choice.

 

 

That said, the President was correct when he stated it is up to the individual states to determine because the regulation and enforcement of contracts is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Nor should it be.

 

Not quite. This discriminatory federal-level bill needs to be repealed before it can be claimed that gay marriage is an issue for the states to deal with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

 

The most effective way to solve this problem in its entirety would be to treat all social contracts related to love between people as either civil unions or de facto partnerships. There should be no de jure recognition of marriage. At all.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Krezack

[Guard Dog]

It is not a civil rights issue because no one is stopping a gay man or worman from getting married, just not in the way they like.

 

But it becomes a civil rights issue because married couples are afforded more rights by the state than non-married couples, no? In the case of straight people, you could argue this doesn't matter, because they have the choice to marry and receive those extra rights or not. But in the case of gay people, they have no such choice.

 

Actually they do. No one is preventing them from getting married, just getting married to someone of the same gender. That is the fig leaf that makes this not a civil rights issue. ASFAIK all States support a civil union that grants gay couples equal rights even if the do not call it marriage. Once again that makes it just a word.

 

That said, the President was correct when he stated it is up to the individual states to determine because the regulation and enforcement of contracts is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Nor should it be.

 

Not quite. This discriminatory federal-level bill needs to be repealed before it can be claimed that gay marriage is an issue for the states to deal with: http://en.wikipedia....of_Marriage_Act

 

The most effective way to solve this problem in its entirety would be to treat all social contracts related to love between people as either civil unions or de facto partnerships. There should be no de jure recognition of marriage. At all.

 

Yeah I had forgotten about DOMA. It should never have been passed. That is a classic example of right wing big government intrusion. As far as getting the government out of the marriage business all together that is a very interesting suggestion. It makes sense to me but I don't think it will ever happen.

[Monte Carlo]

Krezack, why not try reading my post again? Especially the bit where I discuss my atheism. In your indecent haste to play the man, not the ball, you've gone all Point. Not. Found.

[Humodour]

Krezack, why not try reading my post again? Especially the bit where I discuss my atheism. In your indecent haste to play the man, not the ball, you've gone all Point. Not. Found.

 

Oh, I'm well aware you're an atheist. This has nothing to do with your religion or lack thereof. It has to do with you being wrong to hand-wave gay marriage away as being unnecessary because you feel that marriage is a religious institution. You're wrong; it's not. The end.

 

I'm also an atheist but I respect the religious aspect to marriage too (see what I did there?).

 

Yeah, I see what you did there.

[Hurlshort]

It is not a civil rights issue because no one is stopping a gay man or worman from getting married, just not in the way they like.

 

But it becomes a civil rights issue because married couples are afforded more rights by the state than non-married couples, no? In the case of straight people, you could argue this doesn't matter, because they have the choice to marry and receive those extra rights or not. But in the case of gay people, they have no such choice.

 

Actually they do. No one is preventing them from getting married, just getting married to someone of the same gender. That is the fig leaf that makes this not a civil rights issue. ASFAIK all States support a civil union that grants gay couples equal rights even if the do not call it marriage. Once again that makes it just a word.

 

 

I wish we could trust states to move forward on this issue and give equal rights to everyone on their own, but North Carolina just passed legislation that gets rid of both marriage and civil unions for gay couples.

 

Arkansas used the national guard to stop black students from entering Little Rock in 1957, without federal intervention who knows how long we would have kept schools segregated? Much like your claim that gay people can get married, just not the way they want, black students could go to public schools, just not with white students. That's why I call this a civil rights issue.

[Oerwinde]

I'm in the boat that thinks they should just abolish government recognition of marriage. Civil Unions for all. Most marriages end in the signing of the marriage contract anyway, just do things exactly the same only sign a civil union contract instead. Churches can still perform marriage ceremonies, but the marriage isn't recognized by the state unless they enter into a civil union. Churches can decline to marry gays as much as they want, as their decisions have no legal repercussions. If the gays want a religions ceremony, find a church that will allow it. Religious freedom is upheld, equal rights maintained. IMO its the simplest solution to the whole mess and I don't see why it isn't discussed.

 

As for gays adopting/having children, there is no reason not to allow it as long as the same standards apply to them as to straights.

[Morgoth]

Why is gay marriage still such a big deal in the US?

 

Sorry for dropping in so blatantly into this thread. I don't like most of the warmies either, but prohibiting them from what their inner self desires ain't gonna make the world a better place either.

[Guard Dog]

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the DOMA. That doesn't actually mean anything right this second but it will becoe important here shortly.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/us-doma-appeal-idUSBRE84U0TO20120531

[Hurlshort]

Yay!

 

It's taking a long time, but so far these discriminatory acts and props are getting struck down in every court they reach. Which is exactly as it should be.

[Malcador]

Hm, can it get to the Supreme Court before November I wonder.

[Guard Dog]

It would never make it to the SCOTUS before next year. They have already heard all the cases they are going to this year and this has no reason to get an emergency hearing. Besides, the government is the defendant in this case, I don't think the President can allow is solicitor general to argue in defense of DOMA to the SCOTUS after he has come out publicly for gay marriage.

[Gorgon]

Odd institution. With appoinments being largely political rather than meriticious simply being bigoted or pro life/Roe vs. Wade would be a qualification in itself. We would be more inclined to simply legislate rather than have legal precedent be such a major determining factor.

[Hurlshort]

While the appointments are political, once a judge is in office there is really no political pull left to be had with them, meaning judges often ignore the agenda of the party that put them in office.

 

You also don't get into the Supreme Court without a lot of experience and a lengthy interview process, so they are hardly lacking in merit.

[Calax]

Odd institution. With appoinments being largely political rather than meriticious simply being bigoted or pro life/Roe vs. Wade would be a qualification in itself. We would be more inclined to simply legislate rather than have legal precedent be such a major determining factor.

You say that, but one of the known hard line conservatives appointed to the courts by GW Bush, was the one who shot down intelligent design as a non-starter for being put into curriculum and declared it unscientific.Generally once a judge is on the bench their politics don't matter to much... until they get to the Supreme Court where you can basically start trying to figure out wtf the constitution is supposed to be saying in terms of different moral and ethical concerns that wouldn't even be CONSIDERED by those who constructed the document.

[Rosbjerg]

until they get to the Supreme Court where you can basically start trying to figure out wtf the constitution is supposed to be saying in terms of different moral and ethical concerns that wouldn't even be CONSIDERED by those who constructed the document.

 

It's funny, but in many ways that is very similar to the Islamic practice of Hadith. Where, if you have to say anything religious about a current problem, you have to analyze the words of scholars all the way back to Muhammad to find a stand. If there is no precedence, then you can't talk about the current problem in any certain religious terms - religious law if one will.

[Gfted1]

*sigh*

 

Except our Constitution can be ammended.

[Gorgon]

It can happen, but you hold it in the same regard as one would a religious document. One does not simply change the constitution. The constitutionality of this or that is constantly being debated, and with the document itself being largely unchanged it's very hard for people to understand it, so you need scholars to explain it to them, interpret it as it were. The rulings of the supreme court becomes the basis of law because politicians can't get it together and change what needs chaning.

[Gfted1]

What? There have been 27 Ammendments to the Constitution. Most recently as 1992.

[Gorgon]

You call that a lot. 20 years ago, and for the rest of the time the the supreme court rather than congress simply unianimously rule on civil rights activism, or indeed civil rights revisionism.

 

In doing so they use obscure legal points that have little basis in real life to dictate the application of the law. Not at all unlike religous dogma.

 

In any event you would think the application of law would not be so incomprehensible that it becomes a constant battleground. It should be the law itself that was subject to constant debate, not its interpretation. This is because the law is not allowed to change to reflect the society we live in, or rather you live in. Or at least not allowed to change fast enough.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Gorgon

[Nepenthe]

One of the first things you learn when studying law is that law is always going to be behind the curve. A constitution, depending on how difficult it is to amend, more so almost by definition.

[Gfted1]

You call that a lot. 20 years ago, and for the rest of the time the the supreme court rather than congress simply unianimously rule on civil rights activism, or indeed civil rights revisionism.

 

In doing so they use obscure legal points that have little basis in real life to dictate the application of the law. Not at all unlike religous dogma.

 

In any event you would think the application of law would not be so incomprehensible that it becomes a constant battleground. It should be the law itself that was subject to constant debate, not its interpretation. This is because the law is not allowed to change to reflect the society we live in, or rather you live in. Or at least not allowed to change fast enough.

 

I would much rather a thought out and measured approach to Constitutional ammendments they making rulings based on whichever way the wind is currently blowing. When the will of the people becomes great enough regarding a subject then they can effect changes and ammendments are made. Working as intended.