 |
 |
Gay Marriage
| May 11th, 2014 at 4:01:09 PM permalink | |
| Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 | Were laws that made interracial marriage legal a special right? Before that was legal, everyone had the same and equal rights, to marry someone of the same race. Same thing with laws and cultures banning marriages between people of different religions - all of those people had the same rights, to marry someone with the same religion as themselves. I think it is the same argument. I understand the argument that the current law applies the same to all people equally - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't think that changing that law makes it a "special" right, though - it would again still apply to all people equally - the right to marry someone regardless of their gender. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
| May 11th, 2014 at 4:14:46 PM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18210 |
Before that was legal, everyone had the same and equal rights, to marry someone of the same race. Same thing with laws and cultures banning marriages between people of different religions - all of those people had the same rights, to marry someone with the same religion as themselves. No laws were passed to make interracial marriage legal, laws that made it illegal are not the same thing. Interracial marriage was a negative right, meaning you had the right unless a law was passed to take it away. I don't know of laws that banned marriage between religions. Such laws would be mostly unneeded as to marry outside outside ones religion was a church, and not a state matter.
It is a special right in that never before has marriage been extended beyond what was intended, namely one man and one woman. To compare it to bans against interracial marriages, marrying untaxed Indians, or anything else do not hold water for this reason. I hate to make it graphic, but perhaps it needs to be done. Think about it this way, a gay marriage cannot be properly consummated in any case. Not the case with any other example you are giving. The President is a fink. |
| May 11th, 2014 at 4:49:38 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Nope. That's why you might as well make it legal to marry your pet, what's the difference. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| May 11th, 2014 at 5:09:59 PM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18762 |
No it's not, if the makeup of the society is not all heterosexuals to begin with. If we look at every large population group and say, there's a good chance a certain percentage or them will prefer same sex partners, the law is inherently discriminatory from the get go when we make it to exclude them. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| May 11th, 2014 at 5:16:19 PM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18210 |
Well they are free to live a straight lifestyle if they like, nobody is stopping them. They choose something else. "Fair" means the law applied to everyone equally, not to everyone in the way they want. The President is a fink. |
| May 11th, 2014 at 5:18:22 PM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18762 | Also, I think, but not sure, the Constitutional argument of discrimination rests somewhere on the interpretation of property at that time. You're not discriminating against a slave because of property. It's a technical loophole that appears to justify the Constitution as fair as written. If an imported slave had a baby on U.S. territory, the baby was still not free. The Constitution did nothing to rectify these situations without later amendments. So, I assume it had something with how it dealt with property. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| May 11th, 2014 at 5:30:20 PM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18210 | , Slaves were not citizens, they were slaves/property as you say. When a slave was freed their freedom was sometimes recorded in The Recorder of Deeds along with the real property. Again, the US Constitution and our law system are negative law. IOW, you can do something unless it is banned. The last thing you want to live under is "positive law" no matter what some of our leaders and the educated class think. IIRC the Constitution only talks about slavery in ability of the Feds to regulate slave imports and how to count slaves for allotting congressmen, The President is a fink. |
| May 11th, 2014 at 7:16:34 PM permalink | |
| Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 | A judge in Arkansas has un-banned gay marriage. The state is appealing. I didn't go looking to find out if marriages are happening or if a stay is forthcoming, as happened in Michigan. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
| May 11th, 2014 at 11:21:25 PM permalink | |
| beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 |
The special treatment is given to married people NOW. It would be equal treatment if it were available to every couple. It's not. Special IRS tax rates. Hospital visitation. Medical decisionmaking for an incapacitated spouse. Inheritance. Parental rights. Adoption. Jail visitation. Court testifying. Health care rates. Insurance rates. Even qualifying for time share ownership in some consortiums. Lots of other, lesser stuff. The US Constitution did, in fact, initially discriminate against Women, Blacks, and Indians; much but not all of that has been fixed through amendments and other means. I had extended some credibility to you through Face's saying you had argued logically and based on facts on this topic. Perhaps I was wrong to do so; between your condescending remarks like "sigh" and "here we go again", and your making up "facts" based not on observable science and recorded history but on your unsubstantiated beliefs, it's tough to want to continue the conversation. So I will step out at this point. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
| May 12th, 2014 at 12:31:03 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18762 | Concerning the definition of "special rights". I would view gay marriage as expanded rights not special. Special would be if only gays could marry the same sex. Under gay marriage, heterosexuals can also marry people of the same sex. Not that they would. But their rights are expanded whether they need it or not. A special right would be an able bodied person not being able to get special considerations made for disabled person. A special right, is a law for seniors that discriminates by age but not available to younger people. But gay marriage, is in its most basic form, available to anyone. Not special. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |