Shame on you, NC

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

...and what makes you assume that all civil rights should be subject to a popular vote? Fundamental civil rights such as interracial marriage, abortion, ADA, racial equality, women voting, and, um... the abolition of slavery were not subject to popular vote, and it could be argued that none of these would have become law if subject to a popular vote. In the case of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, why should their rights be subject to the tyranny of the largely unwashed masses? The private sexual and legal matters of people in a committed loving relationship is nobody else's freaking business, and there is no legitimate reason for NOT extending all of the legal protections and privileges of marriage to couples of the same gender. All of the arguments against marriage equality are based on red herrings, lies, gross exaggerations and fear mongering- not a single shred of factual evidence. I DO begrudge anyone voting on matters relating to civil rights for a minority because it always ends up oppressing the minority. Always.

Did you miss the part where I addressed this? Nobody is saying gay people aren't human. People are saying marriage is between a man and a woman. A gay man CAN marry a woman. Thus his civil rights are protected.

And all of the issues you bring up are exactly why I don't think marriage should be a civil issue at all. As soon as it is, it is open to government regulation--and thus, to democratic vote.

Why is marriage a civil union? It's because the government (and the voters) wants to encourage certain types of behavior (monogamy, traditional family units, paternal responsibility) through incentives and privileges and penalties. I agree with mezzoforte who said she doesn't want the govt up in people's bu'ness.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings and their faith. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play? Of course, I mean, I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they? Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote? I'm not even saying that's not valid: I'm just utterly confused. It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.

I enjoy your discourse.

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong?

Liberty and justice for all.

From where do you get a sense of right and wrong?

From my life experiences including the interactions I've had with others.

Regarding marriage between two gay men or two gay women, I look to a lesson from elementary school: majority rule; minority rights. In The United States, the will of the majority is respected and enforced so long as there is no infringement upon the equal rights of the minority. So, I offer this: If Christian Americans (for example) are opposed to marriage between two men - the minority could never force two Christian men to marry each other because it violates their rights--but--likewise, Christians, despite being a majority in this nation, should not be permitted to withhold the right of marriage from two consenting adult men. In this case, the freedoms of both sides are respected and neither group's rights are infringed upon.

I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they?

Any one of us indeed does have that right. It's a serious neglect of what I consider a civic responsibility, but by all means - if that is someone's preference, they are within their rights to do so.

Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote?

No.

It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.

Fair enough - I'm sure it looks that way to many who would rather not understand both sides of the issue, but the reality is more like this: Person A is upset that Person B is using personal and non-universal dogma to withhold a civic right they enjoy from Person A.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

Exactly!!

[TrueFaith77]

But this is also where we disagree. Marriage is not a civic right. Marriage is a type of behavior that government encourages through benefits, recognition, etc. blah blah. And, consequently, it is open to being defined via law-making practices (such as referendums and bills, etc.). One's access to those benefits are not being denied in this case. If you behave THIS WAY (i.e., if you "marry" someone of the opposite sex), you get the benefits. I just don't like the gov't doing that. Stay out the marriage business, I say.


BUT AGAIN: I'm just one vote. And I'm ok with that.

[TrueFaith77]

As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

The spirit or the law? The spirit is an abstract notion. Note that for a Catholic, the concept of "freedom" (as in the bill of rights) is very different from that of a Protestant, Puritan, or deist (as were many of the Founders), as it would be for an atheist or a secular libertarian or a Socialist or a chiffonhead.

If the "law," then one could not have voted for Roosevelt, who overturned Prohibition, because Prohibition was at that time part of the U.S. Constitution. (What was unconstitutional--in my limited knowledge of the subject lol--what was an infraction of Civil Rights was that it was made consequently illegal for effiminate men to congregate in establishments that serve alcohol.--Thanks, FDR!)

The Constitution is a "living document"--it is, via our votes for representatives, ultimately a reflection of our Democratic will. Consequently, it is well within "the spirit of the Constitution" for a person to vote to define "marriage"--either as restrictive or as expansive in its definition.


ETA: Also, a friend of mine is getting his PhD in Economic History. He was explaining to me that the reason marriage became "civil" and regulated was because of the expanding social safety net. It needed to make legally binding the responsibility of father/husband so that they could not just up and leave dependent wife (and child) to be a burden on the taxpayers. I wonder if that is still relevant--men are no longer the sole breadwinners, DNA testing makes paternity the issue rather than marriage, adoption has its own legally binding parent-child responsibilities (speaking of, I think gay people being allowed to adopt is a MUCH more significant "civil rights" issue than marriage). Again: I say the government should be out of marriage; but as a consequence of this history and this fact, it suggests to me that it is well within the government's perview (and thus the voters') to define "civil marriage" along biological lines.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Did you miss the part where I addressed this? Nobody is saying gay people aren't human. People are saying marriage is between a man and a woman. A gay man CAN marry a woman. Thus his civil rights are protected...

Um, why are you even raising this point in my response to your assertion that marriage rights should be subject to a popular vote? Topic shifting much?

Also, I think it is sad that you feel that justice is served when a gay man is forced to marry a woman in order to form a family and enjoy the legal protections that come with marriage. Heaven forbid that marriage should be based on such inconsequential things like love, intimacy and mutual physical attraction.

And all of the issues you bring up are exactly why I don't think marriage should be a civil issue at all. As soon as it is, it is open to government regulation--and thus, to democratic vote...

...But this is also where we disagree. Marriage is not a civic right. Marriage is a type of behavior that government encourages through benefits, recognition, etc. blah blah. And, consequently, it is open to being defined via law-making practices (such as referendums and bills, etc.). One's access to those benefits are not being denied in this case. If you behave THIS WAY (i.e., if you "marry" someone of the opposite sex), you get the benefits. I just don't like the gov't doing that. Stay out the marriage business, I say

Um... perhaps you should take a look back at the majority opinion in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which dealt with the legality of interracial marriage:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

It's a legal precedent. It is a civil right. It is protected in the U.S. Constitition. It is a component of the "pursuit of happiness."

Also, just because something is subject to "government regulation," it does not make it subject to a democratic vote. Another gross, patently false assumption.

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

The spirit or the law? The spirit is an abstract notion. Note that for a Catholic, the concept of "freedom" (as in the bill of rights) is very different from that of a Protestant, Puritan, or deist (as were many of the Founders), as it would be for an atheist or a secular libertarian or a Socialist or a chiffonhead.

Laws are rarely black or white (figuratively speaking), and laws are sometimes put up for referendum if they meet the predefined criteria for a referendum. Sometimes this requires that the law serves some kind of public interest or somehow affects the quality of life for the people subject to the law. At least that is its intended purpose. In the case of Prop. 8 in California, the referendum didn't pass legal muster because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it protected any sort of legitimate public interest. The state supreme court concluded that it was really borne of nothing but animus towards gays and lesbians, which is not a legitimate reason for holding a voter referendum.

It is ironic that the very same people taking Middle Eastern countries to task for their theocratic governments are trying to legislate discrimination against GLBT because of their religious beliefs. Pot meet kettle? This is why in U.S. civics classes, the concept of social justice, as spelled out in the constitution, needs to be stressed. Otherwise we will see more and more of these pockets of American Taliban, er, Teabaggers spreading their ignorant views via legislation and congressional representation.

The Constitution is a "living document"--it is, via our votes for representatives, ultimately a reflection of our Democratic will. Consequently, it is well within "the spirit of the Constitution" for a person to vote to define "marriage"--either as restrictive or as expansive in its definition.

The U.S. Constitution is indeed a living concept. But it is not up for amendment by a simple popular vote. It requires an overwhelming majority vote in congress or a decision from the Supreme Court. It is only subject to our "democratic will" to the extent that our congressional representatives are chosen by democratic will. Just saying something doesn't make it true. And you still haven't responded to the notion that none of the federal constitutional amendments governing civil rights was ever decided by a popular vote.

ETA: Also, a friend of mine is getting his PhD in Economic History. He was explaining to me that the reason marriage became "civil" and regulated was because of the expanding social safety net. It needed to make legally binding the responsibility of father/husband so that they could not just up and leave dependent wife (and child) to be a burden on the taxpayers. I wonder if that is still relevant--men are no longer the sole breadwinners, DNA testing makes paternity the issue rather than marriage, adoption has its own legally binding parent-child responsibilities (speaking of, I think gay people being allowed to adopt is a MUCH more significant "civil rights" issue than marriage). Again: I say the government should be out of marriage; but as a consequence of this history and this fact, it suggests to me that it is well within the government's perview (and thus the voters') to define "civil marriage" along biological lines.

What the hell is "civil marriage along biological lines?" Are you talking about incest??

Civil marriage is a legal construct that provides simplicity in the formation of households and families. I suppose one could theoretically "re-create" most of the legal protections of marriage via a complex patchwork of individual legal documents and procedures, which could take months, years and a lot of money. But why bother when civil "marriage" automatically confers all of those legal protections and also has the added perks of survivor benefits, portability, social recognition, etc.? Another way to frame the legal debate regarding marriage equality is that, for example, let's say a heterosexual couple can travel from Point A to Point B in a chartered jet. However, it is currently illegal for gays/lesbians to fly, so they have to walk from Point A to Point B. Both couples are still getting from Point A to Point B, right? But the gays/lesbians have to work that much harder and longer to achieve the same thing. Separate but equal. That always works, right?

[TrueFaith77]

Well you didn't understand a word that I said. So this is pointless to parse--either you are not listening, even trying to understand my points (in which case i'm sorry I wasted my time), or I'm incapable of communicating my perspective (in which case I'm sorry I wasted yours).

[markolas]

We understand, TrueFaith77, we just think you' re a piece of garbage.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by markolas

We understand, TrueFaith77, we just think you' re a piece of garbage.

Shame on YOU, Markolas.

[RickRobert]

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by RickRobert

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

A totally valid viewpoint--and one that deserves to be counted at the ballot box. (Some on this thread would prefer it not be.)

[Silver Springs]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Well you didn't understand a word that I said. So this is pointless to parse--either you are not listening, even trying to understand my points (in which case i'm sorry I wasted my time), or I'm incapable of communicating my perspective (in which case I'm sorry I wasted yours).

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're not understanding. Please pick up your pacifier. I believe you threw it out of the pram when people decided to have thoughts..

Originally Posted by RickRobert

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

I think people sometimes have a tendency to forget that love can exist on its own merits. They think it's not valid unless somebody else "gave them permission" to be together.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Shame on YOU, Markolas.

hardly. You come here and tell me that my partner and I deserve to be legal strangers, that my bigot relatives should have more say in what happens to me than he does, and then you have the nerve to act offended when I don't roll over and take it?

Stay away from me and stop trying to legislate me into conforming with your asinine religious beliefs.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by RickRobert

Who cares about marriage? We don't need the Lord or a piece of paper to tell us how much we love someone.

How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

And vivfox, please spare me anymore of your nonsense PMs about the status of my relationship. The last two were not appreciated in the least.

[Silver Springs]

Originally Posted by markolas

How naive can you be? That piece of paper ensures that my partner and I aren't legal strangers, which has very real consequences for those of us who don't live in hippy dipshlt land.

I don't think it's naivity. Just a belief in love for its own sake, rather than something recognised by the government. Believe it or, alot of people want to lead their lives without being tied up by red tape and a trail of paper behind them.

Please don't insult people for having an opinion that differs from your own. Maybe you'd have more friends on the board if you didn't resort to personal attacks to protect your opinions.

[Macfanforever]

I've talked to my friend last night.He said."The big insurance companies are fighting this and greasing pockets of our political parties to vote against this". They dont want to pay out more money then they have too.