Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 57 - 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 01-20-2014, 04:51 PM   #841
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:01 AM
To further prove that the current idea of what marriage is wasn't always the case:

Quote:
Like most ancient governing bodies, Athens didn't legally define marriage for its citizens. Producing offspring was pretty much the only reason to get hitched -- as one man put it, "We keep hetaerae (courtesans) for pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our body, and wives for the bearing of legitimate children and to keep watch over our house" -- because the state did control movement of wealth through inheritance. It was so important to keep property within the family, Coontz writes, that a girl whose father died without leaving another male heir could be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she had to divorce her current husband.
Marriage wasn't even considered the most ideal union, at least according to the elite members of society. That honor went to -- drumroll, please -- homosexual partnerships, since married men and women weren't expected to provide emotional fulfillment for one another.
Quote:
Confucian philosophers argued that the strongest family bonds existed between fathers and sons, or between brothers, Coontz writes. Marital bonds were a far second to familial ones, so much that a son could be beaten for siding with his wife (who was made to move in with her husband's family) and not his father.
One of the stranger marriage traditions to come out of any society is undoubtedly China's practice of "ghost marriages." To keep unmarried deceased relatives from being lonely in the afterlife, family members married them off -- to another without a pulse. The two were united in a graveside ritual, and the new in-laws kept in touch afterward. Despite being banned in China today, ghost marriages still happen.
Quote:
For the rich, marriage was again a political arrangement between two families who wished to cement their ties and merge assets. Queens arranged marriages for siblings, relatives and ladies-in-waiting in order to create international support networks for themselves. In the 12th and 13th centuries, people believed that "love cannot exert its powers between two people who are married to each other," as the Countess of Champagne once wrote. Adulterous relationships, on the other hand, were the pinnacle of romance.
To the Catholic Church, marriage simply consisted of a man, a woman, mutual consent, consummation, and -- very important -- parental approval. Parents had so much control over marriage negotiations that in 1413, two Derbyshire fathers signed a contract in which the bride's name was left blank, because one father hadn't decided which daughter to marry off.
The plebs used marriage as a way of arranging plots of land, which were doled out in random strips. It was more ideal to have multiple strips next to each other, so you might hope your daughter could marry the neighbor's son. Traders and artisans in the same business often married each other to share supplies.
Quote:
Young people rebelling against their stodgy Victorian-era elders did so by flaunting their youth and hotness, so in addition to marrying for love, ideal couples around the turn of the last century also had satisfying sex lives. By the end of the 1920s, Coontz writes, intimacy between two married people had become even more important than ties with parents. Meanwhile, critics penned newspaper columns titled, "Is Marriage Bankrupt?" and predicted that the increasing focus on sex would lead to the institution's demise in less than 50 years' time.
There's a lot more to be read here: Here's Why The Idea Of 'Traditional Marriage' Is Total Bullsh*t
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 01-20-2014, 07:19 PM   #842
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

said friend of friend and his partner needed some work done on their grout. the company came, gave them an estimate, and then retracted the quote once she found out they were gay. she did not want to do business with them.

that is illegal in DC. (it's not in VA). it would also be illegal in CO.

and so it goes with our baker and the wedding cake. it's the exact same thing.
Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.

Big difference.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-20-2014, 07:23 PM   #843
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Once again, INDY shows he has no comprehension of how the common law works.
I'm not sue you understand the Bill of Rights or separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Common law must work within those limits.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-20-2014, 07:30 PM   #844
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post


the 14th amendment denotes life, liberty, and property, which is understood to include rights and freedoms as well.
In a sentence or two:

Reconcile the 14 Amendment and say...affirmative action.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-20-2014, 07:41 PM   #845
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.



Big difference.



Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.



Can I refuse to bake a cake for a woman who is not a virgin?

I won't touch the issue of blood donation, but I'll invite you to my SSM.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:11 PM   #846
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.

Big difference.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.
but someone being hired to perform a service for any wedding isn't the same as actually being in the ceremony. you're drawing a parallel like a florist is being asked to be the best man, when they just come, bring the flowers, and leave.

to me this is like someone refusing to rent someone (even just one singular person) a hotel room because they don't like the colour of their skin or something. the room won't be unusable afterwards because someone from this race or that race slept in the bed or used the toilet, and it makes no difference to the owner of the hotel. or making it about gender.

basically, the first thing you're saying is completely at odds with the second thing. you think it's okay for them not to accept gay clients, but you realise it's discrimination? i'm just trying to understand your position on this.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 01-21-2014, 04:39 PM   #847
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:01 AM
relevant:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Tuesday held that lawyers cannot exclude potential jurors from a jury based on their sexual orientation — a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny — a decision the court concluded has been made in action, though not in word, by the Supreme Court itself.

In describing the reason for applying the new standard, Judge Stephen Reinhardt examined the Supreme Court’s June decision in Edith Windsor’s case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. Although equal protection claims brought based on sexual orientation have previously been judged under the lowest level of review, called rational basis, the 9th Circuit held that a higher standard now applies.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Reinhardt wrote:

Quote:
Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.
Under that heightened scrutiny, in which equal protection claims are considered more carefully by courts reviewing challenged actions, the court concluded that Batson — a Supreme Court case barring juror strikes based on race — also applies to strikes based on sexual orientation.

Reinhardt wrote:

Quote:
This appeal’s central question is whether equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in jury selection. We must first decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a standard higher than rational basis review. We hold that such classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny. We also hold that equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation and remand for a new trial.
In the current case, the court concluded that Abbott Laboratories had decided to strike a juror because he was gay in a lawsuit brought by SmithKline Beecham over a licensing agreement relating to HIV medication. Examining the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians, Reinhardt then applied that to the questions raised about the potential juror’s exclusion, writing:

Quote:
Strikes exercised on the basis of sexual orientation continue this deplorable tradition of treating gays and lesbians as undeserving of participation in our nation’s most cherished rites and rituals. They tell the individual who has been struck, the litigants, other members of the venire, and the public that our judicial system treats gays and lesbians differently. They deprive individuals of the opportunity to participate in perfecting democracy and guarding our ideals of justice on account of a characteristic that has nothing to do with their fitness to serve.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-22-2014, 08:11 AM   #848
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Update:
Huffington Post / Gay Voices

Jack Phillips, Colorado Baker, Appeals Order To Serve Gays Via Conservative Christian Organization
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-22-2014, 08:33 AM   #849
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Yeah, that's exactly what Jesus would do
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-22-2014, 07:50 PM   #850
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In a sentence or two:

Reconcile the 14 Amendment and say...affirmative action.
I'll open up this question to the snark gallery if Irvine is too busy.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-23-2014, 09:19 AM   #851
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:01 PM
Virginia is for lovers.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...y-marriage-ban
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-23-2014, 10:44 AM   #852
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll open up this question to the snark gallery if Irvine is too busy.
How charitable of you.

Regarding your request, I fail to see the point in it since same sex marriage is in no way analogous to affirmative action. And w/r/t the 14th amendment, I'm sure the core issue you're arguing is this:

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being. Because if you agree that homosexuality is just as innate to a gay man as heterosexuality is to a straight man, then I fail to see how "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is anything but an argument in favor of same sex marriage, not against.

And if you think homosexuality is a choice, well...
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-23-2014, 11:06 AM   #853
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post


some key excerpts from the above article, WRT the 14th amendment:

Quote:
Herring said as he came into office, he asked his staff to review Bostic v. Rainey and, after careful consideration, he came to the conclusion that the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Bostic v. Rainey is one of those cases that are being closely watched. The lawyers challenging the Virginia ban, for example, are David Boies and Ted Olson, who represented the couples who took California's ban on gay marriage all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there are several cases moving through the system that could end up in the high court — one from Utah and one from Oklahoma, for example — this is one that marriage equality advocates would like to see reach the top.

Back in September, when Boies and Olson announced they were joining the case, they said they saw the California Proposition 8 case as the beginning "of our fight for marriage equality."

"What we're hoping, with the case in Virginia, [is] it's the beginning of the end," Boies said.

Herring's solicitor general will tell a federal judge in Norfolk next week that Virginia is joining the plaintiffs in the case, that the state agrees a ban on gay marriage denies some couples in the state what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right.

Herring said he's doing it for Virginians. That's when Steve reminded him that the amendment to Virginia's Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and woman was approved by 57 percent of voters in 2006.

Herring said that his job is to defend laws that are constitutional. This one, he said, isn't. Also, Herring added, he wants his state to be on the right side of history.

"There have been times in some key landmark cases where Virginia was on the wrong side, was on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the law," Herring said. "And as attorney general, I'm going to make sure that the [people] presenting the state's legal position on behalf of the people of Virginia are on the right side of history and on the right side of the law."

Herring also admitted that this issue has been a personal journey for him. In 2006, when he was a member of the state Senate, he voted against marriage equality.

At the time, he said, he was speaking out against discrimination.

"I was wrong for not applying it to marriage," Herring said. "I saw very soon after that how that hurt a lot of people and it was very painful for a lot of people."


After talking to constituents and his family, including his children, he came to "see the issue differently."
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-23-2014, 11:08 AM   #854
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being.

what's interesting, to me, is that one's religion is surely freely chosen. we can believe anything we want about anything we want, and we cannot be discriminated against for it, so long as our behavior falls within the bounds of the law.

even if homosexuality were a choice, why does it matter, when religion, protected by law, is 100% a choice?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-23-2014, 01:04 PM   #855
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what's interesting, to me, is that one's religion is surely freely chosen. we can believe anything we want about anything we want, and we cannot be discriminated against for it, so long as our behavior falls within the bounds of the law.

even if homosexuality were a choice, why does it matter, when religion, protected by law, is 100% a choice?
Because religion is speshul!
__________________

__________________
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 01:01 AM.


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