Same-Sex Marriage

[nataz]

@ Hi Val

umm, thats not quite right. I mean, I can sign a contract to kill someone, but that dosn't make it legal. You need a legal contract that allows marriages between gays before you can sign one.

On the big joke that is Judicial Reveiw

judicial review was like the ultimate act of judicial leg.

I mean seriously, Marshall is a genius at getting himself out of trouble in Marbury v Maddison. Not only did Marshall write the appontment in the first place, and not only had he himself just literaly snuck in with that same batch of appointments, but now Jefferson was both in power AND popular.

If he let it go, Jefferson would nail him to a wall, and who wanted a contest between a popular president and the court in those days? Marshall wouldn't have stood a chance, the supreme court then has nothing on the supreme court of today.

If he killed it, all the sudden Mashall becomes an outcast from his own party, not to mention that whole it was his fault anyways deal.

No matter how he ruled, he was screwd, therefore, don't rule at all. I mean that is pretty amazing, and  I'll give the man credit anyday for thinking outside the box, but I will hardly go so far as to claim it's their "job", especially in terms of the constitution.

I spent an entire semester on judical review, and judicial leg, and its amzing at the arrogance these people have. Anytime the word enlightend starts poping up, I start getting suspicuous.

Judicial Review is one of my favorite topics to raz, because logicly its so weird when you think about it. It happens to be violating just about everything you would think our founding fathers wanted, and even when we look at it today, we only accept it out of apathy and ignorance. We've been trained that Judical Review is good, therefore it must be good. (I will say that original intent is a nasty sticky issue, not in the least which stems from the fact that only certain records of the constitutional convention survive, but of those that did, review was not on the menu)

But think about it. Judges, not states made the laws on abortion, the death penalty, marriage, and a slew of other issues. Don't fool yourself into thinking these men are gods, they are but mortal. They don't have some divine spark that tells them what is right or wrong, they don't automaticly get to be correct.

We are however, stuck with it for now, its not going anywhere. That does not mean however that we should push for blatent Judicial Legislation, especialy over things like...

gay marriage

(see, I tied it all back together)

[Hi-Val]

As I was saying, not a lawyer here. I think the main thrust of the argument was that there's no real reason for making it illegal for two consenting adults to sign what is essentially a property agreement because of their sex preference. I found it to be a different view on it than the arguments for/against that I've already seen.

[Methuselahn]

I have a huge pile of books, newspaper and journal articles, but I find these to be too technical or biased for my liking

Hmm.  I would think that asking this question on TMD would produce biased results.  My assumption is that you will see outspoken liberals talk about this rather than the older conservative crowd.  How many Seniors do you see playing magic?

I couldn't care less if people get married through the state or not, or their gender.

[Milton]

And none of that means anything, because you're wrong: the legal aspects are all that matter here.

How can I be wrong?  I never once stated my own opinion, other than to say that you can't ignore culture.

I can tell you very frankly that if you want gay marriage you have to change the minds of people you are calling bigots.  You can't do that while calling them stupid.

Change the will of the people and you will have same-sex marriage.  I know, majority rule and minority rights...  Very important value in a democracy.  But, 2/3rds of the house and senate and 3/4ths of all states agreed that women should have the right to vote, that slaves should be freed, that 18 years should be the voting age.  It has been done before.  

As hard as a constitutional amendment is, it is certianly easier to get laws passed through congress.  Get congress to act.  Don't circumvent the system with the courts and occasional mayor.  Doing so makes many feel as though values are being forced upon them.

We are talking about culture, though.  Anti-same sex marriage groups don't want marriage redefined.  Pro-same sex marriage groups do want to redefine marriage and, in essence, reshape values.  Both groups feel that new values are being forced upon them by the other group.  Both groups feel as though they are being bullied.  

By the way, why are you a bigot if you don't like same sex marriage but not a bigot if you hate individuals based on christian belief and values?  A bigot is a bigot, after all...

[Smmenen]

Why do we assume that marriage is so rigidly defined to be only between a man and a woman?  I never assumed that.

[Saucemaster]

I can tell you very frankly that if you want gay marriage you have to change the minds of people you are calling bigots.  You can't do that while calling them stupid.

The first of at least two straw-man tactics in your post.  When did I call opponents of same-sex marriage stupid?  I called them bigoted, and I stand by that.  But there is no reason why very intelligent people can't also be bigoted.  I'll go right back to my father.  He's incredibly intelligent.  He's one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, in fact.  And again, in this case he's a bigot.  That's how it goes sometimes.  Now, am I likely to change their minds while calling them bigots?  Not really, no.  But I am very, very skeptical of the idea that I'm going to change their minds anyway.  Because I *do* think they're bigots, and since bigotry is by definition irrational and based on adherence to a creed or set of values, I don't think rational argument is going to alter that.

I'll speak from personal experience.  Before I went to college, I was pretty bigoted and intolerant towards homosexuality myself.  Not surprising, given the circumstances in which I was raised and my set of values at the time.  And all the arguments in the world weren't going to change that.  What did change that was repeated exposure to a range of people who obviously didn't fit in the narrow boxes that my beliefs allowed for.  A friend of mine came out, I got to know and like a number of people who were openly and unashamedly gay, and a great number of people who weren't gay, and whom I respected, disagreed vehemently with the value system to which I'd been clinging.  At some point I saw the emptiness of those values.  That's what changed my mind.  But I've never known someone who was argued into rejecting their beliefs.  So what I'm trying to accomplish in this thread, and in most of my arguments with opponents of same-sex marriage, isn't to change their minds and alter their values any more than it is to coddle their egos.

By the way, why are you a bigot if you don't like same sex marriage but not a bigot if you hate individuals based on christian belief and values?  A bigot is a bigot, after all...

Where did I say that I hate individuals based on Christian beliefs and values?  I believe that the example I used of Christian beliefs and values being bigoted was my father, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the emotion I referenced was "love", not "hate."  Did those stop being opposing terms and somehow merge while I wasn't looking?  I think that someone who judges others based solely on the color of their skin is a racist.  I think that someone who believes that women are inferior to men is sexist.  And I think that someone who believes that gays should be denied the rights that heterosexuals enjoy is a bigot.  That doesn't mean I think they can't be otherwise decent people.  I was pretty straightforward in saying that they can be, and used my father as an example.  And--this is the really important point--I never said that we should deny people with "Christian beliefs and values" any of the rights or privileges afforded to those of non-Christian beliefs and values.  Do you see the difference?

[thorme]

When did I call opponents of same-sex marriage stupid?  I called them bigoted, and I stand by that.  But there is no reason why very intelligent people can't also be bigoted.  I'll go right back to my father.  He's incredibly intelligent.  He's one of the most intelligent people I've ever known, in fact.  And again, in this case he's a bigot.  
...
bigotry is by definition irrational and based on adherence to a creed or set of values, I don't think rational argument is going to alter that.

If bigotry were simply adherence to a set of values, it would pretty much be impossible for anyone NOT to be a bigot.

bigot:  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I would argue that holding a certain opinion, such as regarding gay marriage, in itself is not bigotry.  It becomes bigotry when the individual becomes intolerant of proponents of gay marriage.


This is certainly an interesting thread.  I think the vast majority of people seem to agree with Jacob's first post.  It is interesting though, but that shared opinion doesn't necessarily translate into a particular answer in the poll.  I'm one of those who agree with Jacob's first post, but for that reason, I voted "no" to same-sex marriage since I agree with those who say we should get rid of the government's interest in anyone's marriage.

[Milton]

Where did I say that I hate individuals based on Christian beliefs and values? I believe that the example I used of Christian beliefs and values being bigoted was my father, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the emotion I referenced was "love", not "hate." Did those stop being opposing terms and somehow merge while I wasn't looking? I think that someone who judges others based solely on the color of their skin is a racist. I think that someone who believes that women are inferior to men is sexist. And I think that someone who believes that gays should be denied the rights that heterosexuals enjoy is a bigot. That doesn't mean I think they can't be otherwise decent people. I was pretty straightforward in saying that they can be, and used my father as an example. And--this is the really important point--I never said that we should deny people with "Christian beliefs and values" any of the rights or privileges afforded to those of non-Christian beliefs and values. Do you see the difference?

I'm not saying anything about you at all.  Your personal opinion on the issue isn't my concern.  I'm talking about the left and right as a whole and their responses to this issue.  I'm talking about how the issue is discussed among the public.

With my posts I'm trying to use a Socratic method of questioning to discover truth, not attack you personally.

If you want my opinion on the issue, it's simple.  Gay marriage will never fly.  Call them civil unions and you will have no problem.  A majority of the people in almost every state would easily agree to same sex civil unions, especially if the major issues are discussed.  

The pro-gay marriage people really have to do a better job making arguments, though.  And they aren't very difficult arguments to make.  Should my life partner not be allowed to visit me in the hospital during family vising hours?  Of course not.  If I die should my wealth go to my estranged family instead of my partner of 15 years?  Of course not.  It's not fair.  Most people will agree.  But, forcing the issue with the courts and some overzealous mayors is not doing anyone any favors.  Instead it is galvinizing the right.

Marriage is a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.  That's the definition.  Hetrosexual couples can marry.  Homosexual couples have civil unions.  It seems to be a pretty simple solution to me, even if it is just a matter of semantics.

[Saucemaster]

If bigotry were simply adherence to a set of values, it would pretty much be impossible for anyone NOT to be a bigot.

Of course.  The only thing I said was definitional to bigotry was its irrationality.  Other than that, it's based on adherence to a particular set of values, in the context of people using their own adherence to a particular set of values to deny certain things to people who don't agree with them, but it's not equivalent to the simple adherence to a set of values.  The adherence to some particular creed is a necessary condition before the term bigotry can apply, but it's not a necessary and sufficient condition.  That's my bad, I blame my unclear sentence structure for that one.  I have no problem with the definition you gave.

Whether someone is bigoted who wants to deny gays the right to marry depends entirely on the character of the reasoning they use to arrive at that conclusion.  Is it just "it's not right, God hates it" etc?  Well those all depend on your opponent agreeing with you in the first place on the basis for your claims.  Plenty of people disagree that homosexuality is immoral; plenty of people disagree that it's an "abomination before God"; hell, plenty of people disagree that there even is a God.  So the entire argument is reliant on people agreeing with your own beliefs to begin with, and if you believe that the arguments of those who don't share your beliefs can be discounted, simply because they don't share your beliefs... it's bigotry.

On the other hand, it seemed to me that Rico was trying to present a rational argument, based on the government's interest in the procreative activities of its citizens.  I disagree with his argument, but it's a rational one that we can clearly argue and debate--it doesn't rely on adherence to a religious creed, for example.  So I'd say that his position was not a bigoted one, assuming I was reading it correctly.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out in saying that the *legal* discussion is really the only one that matters as far as the terms of the debate go--because that's something we can all rationally discuss.  I agree with Milton that we probably won't get very far until people's minds are changed and they've been convinced, but that's not something we're going to do by debating the cultural and "value" issues, simply because those kinds of beliefs are beyond debate.  I defy anyone to convince someone that their religiously-motivated, deep-seated beliefs about homosexuality are in fact wrong over the internet.  Maybe I'm just too cynical, though.

[thorme]

if you believe that the arguments of those who don't share your beliefs can be discounted, simply because they don't share your beliefs... it's bigotry.

I agree totally.  In fact, that's why I was pleasantly surprised by this thread.  Upon seeing the title, I groaned, expecting all kinds of thoughtless arguing, etc.  However, I think everyone here has kept things civil.

I haven't really seen anyone discounting anyone else's opinion (disagreeing is not equivalent to discounting another's opinion) - so in that respect, I haven't seen much bigotry from either side of the debate in this thread.

[thecapn]

I just got around to reading this, and the only thing I really wanted to address was from the very start of the thread and kind of off topic, but I'm going to do it anyways.

Except for that whole white people killing of the Indians so that there was an America in the first place. That ended up okay for me, and I assume you. Heck, I am even part Indian and think this.

Genocide in any form is sickening and unacceptable.  It is overwhelmingly insulting for you to try to justify the genocide of Native American peoples based upon the privileges you currently enjoy, and I would like you to apologize for it.

[nataz]

Historically, when our society tries to treat a group less than equally, it is a bad idea. I don't think that this is any exception.

Except for that whole white people killing of the Indians so that there was an America in the first place. That ended up okay for me, and I assume you. Heck, I am even part Indian and think this.

Its all about perspective. Americans often times forget that we are not quite perfect, and have done some pretty *bad* things in our past.

I'm not saying that genocide is right, but I am being realistic. If the American Indians were still here as they once were (pre-genocide) then we, me, you, TMD, magic the gathering, etc. would not be here. It was bad for them as a people, good for us as a nation. Dreamworks is coming out with a series that looks really amazing on this very topic this summer. I'm looking forward to it very much.

It's that simple. I'm not a racists, or a proponent of genocide, but I do prefer existance to non-existance. So yes, that did work out all right for me.

[Jacob Orlove]

If the American Indians were still here as they once were (pre-genocide) then we, me, you, TMD, magic the gathering, etc. would not be here. It was bad for them as a people, good for us as a nation.
...
So yes, that did work out all right for me.

Not only is that a startlingly inaccurate view of history, but you still haven't apologized.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Over the past 100 years the judicial branch of the state has become much more powerful then it was ever intended.

Klep, the more this convo goes on, the more I wonder if you really do understand the history behind the decisions that you and I cited.  [...]

I am well aware of the ideas behind our judical system, and its history in dabbling in making laws, but does that make it a good thing? [...]

on the issue of "waiting"

Slavery > then Gay Marriage

Oh man, I was reading a book randomly since it's spring break for me, and I stumbled onto this:

A Massachusetts slave, Quork Walker, won his freedom in 1781 by a court order, on the ground that the state constitution declared that "all men are born free and equal." New Hampshire also eliminated slavery by judicial decree. Pennsylvania passed a law providing for gradual emancipation in 1780, New York in 1799, and New Jersey in 1804.

So I think we have a precedent even under the extremely less trusting-of-power Articles of Confederation that judicial power can break down laws that destroy minority rights. When I read that, I burst into laughter; it was that awesome. Apparently, even 200+ years ago, this is the way major progress comes about. State by state will institute civil unions and gay marriages, and some others will strike down any anti-gay interpretation of marriage laws. Mississippi can turn over now or later, I only care peripherally as long as the process is allowed to go forward in non-shitty states.

[nataz]

Interesting that you bring up precedent on a point about precedent itself, not to mention that its precedent from a failed system.

oh, and btw, I'm glad the whole slavery issue was cleared up by the courts in the late 1700's paveing the way for peaceful coexistance of the north and the south for 100's of years to come.


@ Jacob Orlove and thecapn, and anyone else who feels the need

I in no way condone genocide.

I separate intent from long-term outcome.

IF there were as many American Indians here WITH even the original amount of land they were promised, America would in no way resemble what we have today. American expansion came at the expanse of the Native Americans.

Was it wrong, sure. Did it work out for everyone (i.e., any non-native American) that benefits from the current day United States, yes.

Anything less then acceptance of that point would lead me to think that you walk around in a constant state of guilt about what was done to Native Americans.

To work off this guilt, may I suggest selling any property that you happen to own/live on and returning that money to any local area tribes. While you are at it, take your paycheck, cash it, and give that away too. I can bet that your job takes place on what was once Indian land (i.e., all of America), and you do not deserve to gain from them. Next, take all of your belongings, and sell that too. repeat the give away money step. Now, naked, and broke, move. Move somewhere where there was no exploitation at all of a local populace before the current populace moved in. May I suggest the south pole, considering A) you don't want to displace any current indigenous people, and B) it would be hard to find a place that had an original populace in the first place.  

Conversely, you can accept that what was done was wrong, but in the end worked out for our current country in general even if it was at the expense of someone else.  

BTW, I AM native American, but even I don't care anymore. I'm so glad that you do however, keeping the fight alive, I respect that.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings, but if it bothers you that much, feel free to PM me on the issue. PM sent. -J

[ELD]

I don't see why the government should have any say in it at all.  Marriage seems to me to be a religous institution.  I'm not really sure why it is in any way controlled by Big Brother.  If a certain faith doesn't allow it, I couldn't care less.  If the governement tells people what to do however, I have a problem.  That which governs least governs best.

[nataz]

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

By the way, he is referring to the fact that review is NOT in the constitution…You are right, I am familiar with the opinion (as I would hope anyone who has ever taken a law class should be), but pointing out Marshal’s opinion that what he did was necessary and right, does not make it right

Your argument is not a new one. The congress holds the purse strings, and the president controls the military, therefore both are dangerous if left alone. The check therefore should be left to the “weakest” branch of government, the Supreme Court who holds neither the money nor the guns.

However, lets quote Jefferson again,

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
 
And why this could be bad…

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[b/]" --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

Just as you quote in this thread classic thought on the positives of judical review, I have posted the negatives of judicial review. Both have fairly detailed, intelligent, and ready-made arguments on either side. Entire careers have been made arguing both points. I still believe that it’s an imperfect system, and that it is one of the greatest ironies of our government. Bringing up even more case law doesn’t change anything, let alone my opinion of it.  

You remember Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, right?

Again, of course.

Similar to Marshall’s situation, that court is famous for thinking outside the box. They were in a tight jam, one, segregation was obviously wrong and needed to be ended, but two if they did end it immediately there was no telling what would happen. It was very possible that the people would take action against the court though the other branches of government, crippling the Supreme Court’s power in the future.

It would have been nice if you had pointed out that the court was treading in dangerous waters, and its decision was far from simple. Although they did declare segregation illegal in public schools (and later though other cases in all public areas) they very noticeably set no timetable. If they had come out and said that all segregation was banned from that moment on, there could have been huge amounts of violence, and no guarantee that it ever would have happened at all.

This just illustrates my point that judicial review is dangerous, not that it had never worked out for the better. If the court had to tread lightly on the issue of segregation (something extraordinarily important), I don’t think that they should even touch the issue of gay marriage.

And as far as Korematsu is concerned, I am very familiar with that. My grandfather was in Manzanar, so I think I have the history down pretty well, or at least certainly better then people who don't have a picture of their grandfather behind barbed wire.

You’re right though, it didn’t work out that time, but I fail to see how that is an example of why we need review. We HAD review, and it didn’t work, maybe something else would have worked in its place.

*edit

the whole feeding tube/right-life issue going on right now is fascinating in and of itself. It’s actually an example of the exact opposite of judicial review, whereas instead of the Judiciary branch overstepping its bounds, the legislator is. I can’t wait for this thing to hit the Supreme Court and see what happens. This really could be a nifty bit of history in the making.

[Jacob Orlove]

I can't think of any other political issue that inspires Ad Hominem arguments as quickly as this one.  Why?

Actually, the explanation is pretty straightforward. First of all, the solution I offered way back at the beginning of the thread is politically nonviable. Second, most people decide one way or the other based on what are usually very strong personal beliefs. Thus, both sides know that there's no real way to convince anyone who's already made up their mind, so they use ad hominem attacks because they want to pressure the undecided people into joining their side.

Or at least, that's what it looks like to me.

[Matt]

Well, I agree with you said, but I think the same could be said for other issues like capital punishment, abortion, and "OMG Bush iz the St00pit" vs. "WTF Bush is Our H3R0!"  All these issues involve deeply-held personal beliefs, and all of them implicate highly significant consequences for Western culture.  However, most of the time I've noticed people aren't as quick to resort to Ad Homs in these cases as they are with same-sex marriage.

I take it you haven't seen nerds arguing Star Wars vs. Star Trek. And god forbid you throw in Lord of the Rings.

[Saucemaster]

You’re right though, it didn’t work out that time, but I fail to see how that is an example of why we need review. We HAD review, and it didn’t work, maybe something else would have worked in its place.

So what's that "something else", then?  Given that judicial review is already established, and given that its track record so far is actually quite good, what is it you want us to give it up for?

This is a serious question, not just a jibe.  I've heard plenty of attacks on judicial review, but given the obvious predilection of the Executive and Legislative branches for overstepping their bounds, it seems pretty self-evident that there needs to be some system in place to balance their excesses.  If it's not going to be judicial review, then what's it going to be?