Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 51 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-10-2014, 01:42 PM   #751
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-10-2014, 01:47 PM   #752
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.


well, sure, you don't find anything in the Bible (now), but what i just quoted came from a judge, linked to in the previous post:

Quote:
At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race:

Quote:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ”
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.
... someone else i know fled the Commonwealth for the District, not least because of marriage laws (better property values, nightlife, friends, and gorgeous architecture aside).

this just underscores the fact that the "definition" of marriage has always, and will always, shift and change with time. we've all pointed out that it used to be possible for men to marry very young teenagers, and in some of our lifetimes (certainly our parent's lifetimes).

SSM is, yes, an evolution of our understanding of human sexuality, and it only asks for legal equality. religions are free, and continue to be free, to discriminate at their will. but businesses, in an increasing number of states, like Colorado, may no longer exclude people from capitalism on the basis of an immutable trait, like race or gender or sexual orientation or one's chosen religion.

i'd like to know, what is it that a gay couple can't do that all straight couples can that are essential to perform what is understood as a marriage?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 01:50 PM   #753
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
They were asking the baker weren't they?
Nope, all they asked the baker was to bake a cake. Nobody asked him to marry someone of his own sex.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-10-2014, 02:07 PM   #754
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.
any and all? nice.

there is the 14th amendment, of course.


Quote:
You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.
actually, it's both. it has been used, but it is the last ditch effort wielded by the bigots. 20 years ago, they could rely on more widespread bigotry and hatred of gay people, but times have changed, just as times changed for blacks in the 1960s and women in the 1970s.

one difference between the exceptions you noted is that these religious exemptions did not infringe upon the rights of others. avoiding the draft, taking peyote -- these are actions taken by the individual that does not affect anyone else.


Quote:
So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?

thank goodness.

it's not that the baker's deeds are so offensive, it's that he's in violation of Colorado's clearly stated civil rights laws. you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. it's extremely simple.


Quote:
Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?
i answered this above -- the difference between, say, fasting for 60 days vs. beating your wife senseless for cheating. one you do to you, the other violates the rights of another.



Quote:
I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.
while i think your "vigilance" is unwarranted precisely because we have things like Colorado's anti-discrimination laws in place that protect you as much as they protect me -- remember, discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal, but we could argue that religion, as opposed to orientation or race, is freely chosen -- i do agree that Sharia Law is incompatible with secularism, for secularism is what allows you to be you.

you have, however, heard of Christian Identity?



Quote:
The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.
and determining that one group is worthy of discrimination and exclusion from capitalism because of religious convictions is the first step towards murdering homosexuals. you seem to think that gay people aren't bashed all the time, or get murdered with alarming frequency (though not as much as the transgendered).

again, look at where Christian Identity takes us:

Quote:
Identity Christianity asserts that disease, addiction, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases (herpes and AIDS) are spread by human "rodents" via contact with "unclean" persons, such as through "race-mixing".[35]:85 The first book of Enoch is used to justify these social theories; the fallen angels of Heaven sexually desired Earth maidens and took them as wives, resulting in the birth of abominations, which God ordered Michael the Archangel to destroy, thus beginning a cosmic war between Light and Darkness.[35]:85 The mixing of separate things (e.g. people of different races) is seen as defiling both, and is against God's will.[35]:86

Identity preachers proclaim that, according to the King James Bible, "the penaltys for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death."[35]:86 The justification for killing homosexuals is provided by Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Exodus 22:21-22, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy explicitly condemn usury.[35]:92 Ezekiel 18-13 states "He who hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" and is quoted as justification for killing Jews, since Jews have traditionally had a large presence in the usury business.

Identity followers reject the label of "anti-Semitic", stating that they can't be anti-Semitic, since in fact the true Semites "today are the great White Christian nations of the western world", with modern Jews in fact being descendants of the Canaanites.
you linked TG children with SSM, that seems like much more of a stretch than pointing out the slippery slope when we allow religious "expression" (really: discrimination) to trump protected civil rights.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 02:41 PM   #755
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Hope, and Change.

Obama Administration To Recognize Utah Same-Sex Couples' Marriages
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 06:28 PM   #756
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post



I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.

So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.

Hope and Change?

I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-10-2014, 07:26 PM   #757
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.
Interesting that you didn't think that this was judicial activism.

Though not surprising.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 07:40 PM   #758
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.



So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.



Hope and Change?



I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.


That's very George Wallace of you.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 07:59 PM   #759
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,011
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
I think you can apply this to capitalists of most stripes to be honest (excluding your every day typical liberal).
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 08:58 PM   #760
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Did anybody answer the question about how horrible it is in Massachussets (how the fuck do you spell that when you're tired, anyway?) since the gays can get married just like reg'lar folks?

Indy's got me on ignore, so could someone ask him again? Or was it Iron Horse that was asked?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-10-2014, 10:10 PM   #761
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Yes, this was INDY's answer:

Quote:
Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute
So I'm guessing the bad things that have happened is that the radical left has been emboldened?

Like up here in Canada where we have a Conservative federal government in place...
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-10-2014, 10:57 PM   #762
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:32 PM
So, nothing happened, then?

And last time I looked, I was still quite different from my husband, and the gays have been legally married here for a while now.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 01:31 AM   #763
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
do you guys not understand how anti-discrimination laws work?
Yes I do.

You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.
__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 01:57 AM   #764
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.

I'm pretty busy now, but as someone who is fairly sympathetic to libertarianism, I'll probably try to write a libertarian response soon.
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 04:00 AM   #765
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl View Post
Yes I do.

You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.


This is not an issue of speech, I posted the judge's clear remarks on that. The laws are not in conflict -- this is no different than refusing to let blacks at Woolworth's sit at the lunch counter. One's "religious convictions" to be a bigot do not allow you to refuse to sell a product to someone because of their membership in a group of people clearly protected by state law. In some states you get to fire people for being gay, "your existence offends me, you're fired." You can't do that in CO

Given the example you cited before -- a Kosher deli and pork -- it really sounded as though you hadn't a clue how the laws worked.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com