Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 55 - 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 01-16-2014, 12:48 PM   #811
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Disgusting!! Regardless of one's beliefs on SSM marriage the fact that, once again, a single judge has overruled the will of the people (75% of voters in OK) and asserted the power to redefine marriage is another blow against the separation of powers, state's rights, religious conscience and self-government.

Oklahoma only codified in its constitution the definition of marriage that had existed since its founding as well as the same definition that existing when the U.S. Constitution was written. Has the constitution changed? Has the U.S. congress passed new civil rights laws regarding marriage? If society has truly changed then let those changes be reflected in the written law, not the "look what I found that no one noticed before" newly interpreted law. Process matters.

Panem et circenses while the Republic crumbles under debt, lawlessness, corruption and apathy.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-16-2014, 12:58 PM   #812
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:34 PM
gosh, an awful lot of activist judges out there!

or maybe it really is unconstitutional to deny rights to a group of people based on their sexual orientation! maybe it really is unconstitutional to decide civil rights by majority rule!

maybe!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2014, 12:59 PM   #813
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Once again, INDY shows he has no comprehension of how the common law works.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-16-2014, 01:05 PM   #814
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:34 PM
but he sure knows more than this so-called judge who says non-constitutional things like:

Quote:
“moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification ... [the ban is] an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit ... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, as Oklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country ... Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed."
and what with OK's sky-high divorce rate, heteroes need all the help they can get, and we do that by punishing gay people!

i wonder if the INDY of 1967 would have said the same thing when another "disgusting" activist judge overturned OK's interracial marriage ban? all this talk about Constitutional purity, and natural rights, and maximizing freedom ... NOT IF YOU'RE GAY!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2014, 01:57 PM   #815
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Yes, but in INDY's defense, consequences.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 01-16-2014, 02:12 PM   #816
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Yes, but in INDY's defense, consequences.

i don't want to live in a world where i'm not allowed to vote away the rights of other people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2014, 03:02 PM   #817
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but he sure knows more than this so-called judge who says non-constitutional things like:

“moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification ... [the ban is] an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit ...
"arbitrary and irrational"? Talk about self-righteous. Ok Irvine. What's "rational" about limiting marriage to two people? Seems rather "arbitrary" given history and other current cultures around the world.

Quote:
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, as Oklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country ...
Non-sequitur, divorce rates are dependent upon marriage rates for one thing. And how will SSM improve divorce rates among heterosexuals?
Quote:
Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed."
Equal protection before the law, while a basic human right, is not an unlimited blanket right anymore than religious conscience is an unlimited blanket right. Do you know the history of the 14th amendment? Do think it was ratified as a constitutional imprimatur of any behavior?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-16-2014, 03:16 PM   #818
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"arbitrary and irrational"? Talk about self-righteous. Ok Irvine. What's "rational" about limiting marriage to two people? Seems rather "arbitrary" given history and other current cultures around the world.
Marriage, as the government is concerned, is primarily a financial institution. So limiting marriage to two people is mostly tied to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Non-sequitur, divorce rates are dependent upon marriage rates for one thing. And how will SSM improve divorce rates among heterosexuals?
How will it hurt divorce rates among heterosexuals?
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 01-16-2014, 03:17 PM   #819
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"arbitrary and irrational"? Talk about self-righteous. Ok Irvine. What's "rational" about limiting marriage to two people? Seems rather "arbitrary" given history and other current cultures around the world.

yup, arbitrary and irrational. this is what we've seen in court cases across the country, including the SCOTUS. it is arbitrary to single out gay people for marriage discrimination, and there is no rational basis for such discrimination.

what public good is served by preventing gay people from getting married?


Quote:
Non-sequitur, divorce rates are dependent upon marriage rates for one thing. And how will SSM improve divorce rates among heterosexuals?
more people will get married, for one. i also think the discussion on SSM has been of enormous benefit to society.

read this: The Gay Guide to Wedded Bliss - Liza Mundy - The Atlantic

i know you won't read the whole thing, so here's the conclusion:

Quote:
So yes, marriage will change. Or rather, it will change again. The fact is, there is no such thing as traditional marriage. In various places and at various points in human history, marriage has been a means by which young children were betrothed, uniting royal houses and sealing alliances between nations. In the Bible, it was a union that sometimes took place between a man and his dead brother’s widow, or between one man and several wives. It has been a vehicle for the orderly transfer of property from one generation of males to the next; the test by which children were deemed legitimate or bastard; a privilege not available to black Americans; something parents arranged for their adult children; a contract under which women, legally, ceased to exist. Well into the 19th century, the British common-law concept of “unity of person” meant a woman became her husband when she married, giving up her legal standing and the right to own property or control her own wages.

Many of these strictures have already loosened. Child marriage is today seen by most people as the human-rights violation that it is. The Married Women’s Property Acts guaranteed that a woman could get married and remain a legally recognized human being. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia did away with state bans on interracial marriage. By making it easier to dissolve marriage, no-fault divorce helped ensure that unions need not be lifelong. The recent surge in single parenthood, combined with an aging population, has unyoked marriage and child-rearing. History shows that marriage evolves over time. We have every reason to believe that same-sex marriage will contribute to its continued evolution.

The argument that gays and lesbians are social pioneers and bellwethers has been made before. Back in 1992, the British sociologist Anthony Giddens suggested that gays and lesbians were a harbinger of a new kind of union, one subject to constant renegotiation and expected to last only as long as both partners were happy with it. Now that these so-called harbingers are looking to commit to more-binding relationships, we will have the “counterfactual” that Gary Gates talks about: we will be better able to tell which marital stresses and pleasures are due to gender, and which are not.

In the end, it could turn out that same-sex marriage isn’t all that different from straight marriage. If gay and lesbian marriages are in the long run as quarrelsome, tedious, and unbearable; as satisfying, joyous, and loving as other marriages, we’ll know that a certain amount of strife is not the fault of the alleged war between men and women, but just an inevitable thing that happens when two human beings are doing the best they can to find a way to live together.


more concretely:

Quote:
If you doubt that straight households are paying attention to same-sex ones, consider Danie, a woman who lives with her husband and two children in Bethesda, Maryland. (Danie asked me not to use her last name out of concern for her family’s privacy.) Not long after she completed a master’s degree in Spanish linguistics at Georgetown University, her first baby was born. Because her husband, Jesse, works long hours as a litigator, she decided to become a full-time parent—not an easy decision in work-obsessed Washington, D.C. For a while, she ran a photography business out of their home, partly because she loves photography but partly so she could assure people at dinner parties that she had paying work. Whenever people venture that women who work outside the home don’t judge stay-at-home moms, Danie thinks: Are you freaking kidding me?

She takes some comfort, however, in the example of a lesbian couple with whom she is friendly. Both women are attorneys, and one stays home with their child. “Their life is exactly the same as ours,” Danie told me, with a hint of vindication. If being a stay-at-home mother is “good enough for her, then what’s my issue? She’s a huge women’s-rights activist.” But while comparing herself with a lesbian couple is liberating in some ways, it also exacerbates the competitive anxiety that afflicts so many modern mothers. The other thing about these two mothers, Danie said, is that they are so relaxed, so happy, so present. Even the working spouse manages to be a super-involved parent, to a much greater extent than most of the working fathers she knows. “I’m a little bit obsessed with them,” she says.

Related to this is the question of how gay fatherhood might impact heterosexual fatherhood—by, for example, encouraging the idea that men can be emotionally accessible, logistically capable parents. Will the growing presence of gay dads in some communities mean that men are more often included in the endless e‑mail chains that go to parents of preschoolers and birthday-party invitees? As radically as fatherhood has changed in recent decades, a number of antiquated attitudes about dads have proved strangely enduring: Rob Hardies, the pastor at All Souls, reports that when his partner, Chris, successfully folded a stroller before getting on an airplane with their son, Nico, he was roundly congratulated by passersby, as if he had solved a difficult mathematical equation in public. So low are expectations for fathers, even now, that in Stephanie Schacher’s study of gay fathers and their feelings about caregiving, her subjects reported that people would see them walking on the street with their children and say things like “Giving Mom a break?” Hardies thinks that every time he and Chris take their son to the playground or to story hour, they help disrupt this sort of thinking. He imagines moms seeing a man doing this and gently—or maybe not so gently—pointing it out to their husbands. “Two guys somehow manage to get their act together and have a household and cook dinner and raise a child, without a woman doing all the work,” he says. Rather than setting an example that fathers don’t matter, gay men are setting an example that fathers do matter, and that marriage matters, too.
it's good for gay people. it's good for straight people. it's good for children.

it's so win-win-win it's hard to know where to start.



Quote:
Equal protection before the law, while a basic human right, is not an unlimited blanket right anymore than religious conscience is an unlimited blanket right. Do you know the history of the 14th amendment? Do think it was ratified as a constitutional imprimatur of any behavior?

behavior? marriage is just a behavior? surely you're not calling a sexual orientation a behavior, since we all know better than that, and it would demonstrate the fact that you have no argument beyond "it's a choice!"

the 14th amendment denotes life, liberty, and property, which is understood to include rights and freedoms as well.

here's what the unanimous Loving v Virginia decision made clear:

Quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 12:17 AM   #820
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

what public good is served by preventing gay people from getting married?

You keep asking this like you're going to get an answer.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 12:20 AM   #821
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Disgusting!! Regardless of one's beliefs on SSM marriage the fact that, once again, a single judge has overruled the will of the people (75% of voters in OK) and asserted the power to redefine marriage is another blow against the separation of powers, state's rights, religious conscience and self-government.

California Proposition 14 (1964) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Redefining property rights! Disgusting!!!1!!1!!

 
State's rights?? Are we going there?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 01:13 AM   #822
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 06:34 PM
MORAL AMERICA don't you understand?!?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 07:24 AM   #823
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
California Proposition 14 (1964) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Redefining property rights! Disgusting!!!1!!1!!



 
State's rights?? Are we going there?



I also remember Prop 187. A law that was votes on by the virtuous people of California and passed 59 to 41%.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 09:36 AM   #824
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 03:34 PM
That damn thing. It broke the Republicans out here; they still haven't recovered. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-17-2014, 09:36 AM   #825
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:34 AM
I'm still curious about those consequences of allowing gays to marry, still haven't heard a proper argument one sofar. And from experience, I got zilch. Gays have been getting married for over 10 years here now, and what's the consequence for the country? Gays are getting married. That's about it..
__________________

__________________
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  
 

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 06:34 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