locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692771:date=Nov 7 2008, 08:54 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 7 2008, 08:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The US isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic, and there's a gigantic amount of stuff throughout the system that's designed to project the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is one of these things; it lays out which freedoms can be restricted and which freedoms can't. Obviously there are <i>some</i> freedoms we all agree need restricting, like the freedom to kill people, and some that we're sure we never want to restrict, like the freedom to have blue eyes, but there are ones in the middle like the freedom of ###### people to marry and so on that aren't as clear cut.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All men [and women] are created equal(Declaration of Independence, I know). The "freedom to kill' isn't a freedom because you're taking away someone else's rights, namely "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Over 200 years later people are still having trouble with the "all men are created equal" part.
Of course the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better then people seem to treat it, and just because a group of people voted to suppress a groups rights doesn't make it constitutional. It's a textbook case, one religion is forcing the gov't to adhere to it's definition of marriage. There's no "crazy interpretation" especially since freedoms <i>are clear cut</i>. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Marriage, when speaking about laws regarding them, is not an aspect of religion, it is an aspect of law.
I can become an ordained minister and perform marriages as much as I feel like, between any things I feel like it, and it will all be perfectly legal, and no one can stop me. HOWEVER, those things I have married are not in the legal contract of marriage, and thus gain none of the LEGAL benefits of marriage.
Hell, I could go and get my self ordained as a Minister of Discordia and marry ELost and Lolf. They can go around calling each other Husband and no one can stop them. They can't claim the tax rights and what not, but they are married in the eyes Eris. (I in fact do have a friend who is a Discordian minister and has performed one or 2 legal marriages as well <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Thus, it isn't a question of being constitutional or not. Hell, it would be unconstitutional for any local/state/national govn't (in the US) to do ANYTHING with marriage if it was a a religious thing (yay for separation of church and state).
Another good example of this is that I have a pair of friends who are legally married but have not done the whole church thing yet (and thus are not married in the eyes of their god).
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692773:date=Nov 7 2008, 09:36 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Nov 7 2008, 09:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692773"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marriage, when speaking about laws regarding them, is not an aspect of religion, it is an aspect of law.
I can become an ordained minister and perform marriages as much as I feel like, between any things I feel like it, and it will all be perfectly legal, and no one can stop me. HOWEVER, those things I have married are not in the legal contract of marriage, and thus gain none of the LEGAL benefits of marriage.
Hell, I could go and get my self ordained as a Minister of Discordia and marry ELost and Lolf. They can go around calling each other Husband and no one can stop them. They can't claim the tax rights and what not, but they are married in the eyes Eris. (I in fact do have a friend who is a Discordian minister and has performed one or 2 legal marriages as well <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Thus, it isn't a question of being constitutional or not. Hell, it would be unconstitutional for any local/state/national govn't (in the US) to do ANYTHING with marriage if it was a a religious thing (yay for separation of church and state).
Another good example of this is that I have a pair of friends who are legally married but have not done the whole church thing yet (and thus are not married in the eyes of their god).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, but prop 8 and the rest have nothing to do with the church definition of marriage and everything to do with the state definition of marriage and anyone that tells you otherwise is ignorant of the truth or lying to get you to support state bigotry. That's why it's unconstitutional to define the legal definition of marriage according to a specific religion and why prop 8 and the rest are unconstitutional.
Said another way, a legal definition of marriage is still a separation of church and state as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's beliefs(separation of church and state comes from the first amendment.) The state's definition of marriage never affects the churches definition of marriage. The state definition of marriage does not stop people from being married in the eyes of their god, and as that would imply, a state that allows ###### marriage does not force the church to marry people in the eyes of the your god because, as always, the church is a private institution. Prop 8 removes the right for specific couples to be married <i>legally</i> and the rights that go with that(specifically tax and adoption rights).
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Right, I fail to see where anything you said contradicts what I said.
Prop 8 doesn't say: "Only the Christian/Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/Discordian/Whatever view of marriage is acceptable, and thus ######s can't be married." it says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Thus, separation of church and state is upheld and it is constitutional. Just because the belief stems from a religious belief doesn't make it unconstitutional. It is a representation of the people's moral beliefs (laws are simply a codified set of moral rules). If we were going to say that we can't have any laws based on religious beliefs then I would like to point you to the 10 commandments (thou shalt not kill is one of them iirc). So, ok, you can counter that with "well, the 'sanctity of marriage' is only a religious belief" which I counter with an atheist who hates ######s.
Also, if our system of govn't refuses to accept views simply because they are based on religion, then it isn't the govn't that I want.
The sad thing is not so much what the constitution allows, but that a <b>majority</b> of people would vote to ban something that doesn't affect them. It seems spiteful. Very unbecoming of citizens of the "land of the free" (or rather certain parts thereof). Your nation, and by extension its states, should be the beacon of freedom it claims to be, not a place where minorities are allowed to flourish only if they make themselves palatable to the majority.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692783:date=Nov 7 2008, 01:14 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 01:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692783"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The sad thing is not so much what the constitution allows, but that a <b>majority</b> of people would vote to ban something that doesn't affect them. It seems spiteful. Very unbecoming of citizens of the "land of the free" (or rather certain parts thereof). Your nation, and by extension its states, should be the beacon of freedom it claims to be, not a place where minorities are allowed to flourish only if they make themselves palatable to the majority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All true, and all very unfortunate.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited November 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1692782:date=Nov 7 2008, 11:14 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Nov 7 2008, 11:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right, I fail to see where anything you said contradicts what I said.
Prop 8 doesn't say: "Only the Christian/Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/Discordian/Whatever view of marriage is acceptable, and thus ######s can't be married." it says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The contradiction is "marriage is between a man and a woman" and not "marriage is between two consenting adults" or whatever it was before. The Church of Discordia could define marriage as only between two men, but by no means should that be the legal definition of marriage. It fails the same way "between a man and a woman" fails.
Here's another way of looking at it. Let's say this forum is the Gov't of the United States of Charlie and we have a law that says all rights belong to the forum goers by default. Furthermore, it also has a law , we'll call it the 14th amendment, that states <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As we live in the US of C in the great state of Off Topic we must abide by these rules, but one day I start the religion of lolism and one of my rules is that people who have the name "<b>Thansal</b>" cannot be gloobered. That's fine because my religion is private and I can do what I want with it for the most part. The <b>Thansal</b>s say "Whatever, I can be gloobered in another religion, it doesn't matter". Let's say the state Off Topic says that people who are gloobered can bybass the forum filter a certain number of times each day. But because I lobby the Admins of Off Topic with lots of money I get the legal definition of gloobered to exclude <b>Thansal</b>s. It's pretty clear that the same right afforded other forum goers is being denied to <b>Thansal</b>s on the basis of religion, and that this abridgement of rights by default designated to the people goes against the 14th amendment, yes?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited November 2008
really you are arguing 2 things here:
1) We have a right to marry how we see fit, and to receive the legal advantages of that union.
2) Because of 1 we can't redefine marriage based on other people's religious morals.
Part one I can't argue for or against. I am not familiar enough with the subject, however I think that it is generally accepted to not be the case (we don't have a right to marriage and the associated legal advantages, those are things granted to us by the state to encourage it).
Part 2 is what I have been arguing about. If we assume that 1 is false, then 2 is simply "we can't define marriage based on religious beliefs". If we assume that 1 is true, then it doesn't MATTER if it is based on religious beliefs or not, b/c it is unconstitutional in the first place.
If we assume that 1 is false then it doesn't matter where the moral decision that "Marriage is between one man and one woman" comes from, so long as the law doesn't say "We only recognize <insert religion name(s) here> marriages.", then it is constitutional. It is the state saying "We are creating a legal device called Marriage. It is the legal union of one man and one woman. They shall <insert rights/privileges/restrictions here>". Yes, I understand it is splitting hairs. but it is the same reason why our govn'ts (local/state/national) can do things like: Restrict the sale of alcohol/tobacco. (we still have dry towns) Define the age of consent. Have legal marriages (As in, sponsored by the state).
BTW: Please remember that I deplore the banning of ###### marriage, I am totally disappointed in the 3 states that passed those ballot options, I hope and pray that there WAS foul play going on and that it can be proven, etc etc etc. I am arguing this because I believe that the line we are discussing is an important one for protecting certain other parts of our rights. Kinda like the old (wrong) Voltaire quote.
@locally: When you reach that level of abstraction, it is neither clear that "that" is what's happening, nor clear that it is analogous to the situation in California.
Fundamentally, we really have two separate questions to ask of the Amendment: "Is it good?", and "Is it legal?" I'm not going to touch the "good" question with a 10-foot pole at the moment, but at least nominally that question is supposed to be answered by a vote of the people at the polls.
So that leaves the question of legality. And indeed we have a 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection. We also have a tradition that says "any A-category person can form this contract with any B-category person, with a few limitations as described by law." We also have a recent local court decision that says "you should also allow any A-category person to form that contract with another A-category person". And now we have an Amendment that says "the contract only counts if it includes one A-category person and one B-category person".
Does that violate the 14th amendment? It's kind of fuzzy. There aren't any people who are excluded from forming a contract. The limitation is only on who they are permitted to contract with. And there are several pre-existing limitations that are not challenged, so it is not the concept of limitations that is at question, only this particular limitation. There is no particular class of people who have fewer rights under the law than others -- they all have equal access to contract with the opposite class. Then again depending on how you look at it, you could say all men miss out on the right afforded to women to contract with men, and all women miss out on the right afforded to men to contract with women.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692788:date=Nov 7 2008, 01:13 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Nov 7 2008, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692788"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we assume that 1 is false then it doesn't matter where the moral decision that "Marriage is between one man and one woman" comes from, so long as the law doesn't say "We only recognize <insert religion name(s) here> marriages.", then it is constitutional.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know you said to address <b>Cxwf</b>, but this is important. It doesn't matter whether the rights are explicitly or implicitly abridged. They're defining marriage in such a way that it <i>happens</i> to not include a group of people and prevent them from gaining legal marriage status. That's just as unconstitutional as explicitly denying rights. <!--quoteo(post=1692789:date=Nov 7 2008, 01:15 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So that leaves the question of legality. And indeed we have a 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection. We also have a tradition that says "any A-category person can form this contract with any B-category person, with a few limitations as described by law." We also have a recent local court decision that says "you should also allow any A-category person to form that contract with another A-category person". And now we have an Amendment that says "the contract only counts if it includes one A-category person and one B-category person".
Does that violate the 14th amendment? It's kind of fuzzy. There aren't any people who are excluded from forming a contract. The limitation is only on who they are permitted to contract with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're trying to argue that ###### people aren't prevented from forming the contract? I'll point to the Jim Crow laws. Similarly, black people in the south weren't prevented from voting, there were just many barriers to it. So a ###### couple(let's say men) would have to find a lesbian couple that is willing to live with them and hold up a pretence of marriage to get the same benefits a non-###### couple would. Basically the only way to get the benefits of a non-###### couple is to not be ######. It would have been like telling black people in the South they can vote as long as they put on makeup to look like a white person. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And there are several pre-existing limitations that are not challenged, so it is not the concept of limitations that is at question, only this particular limitation. There is no particular class of people who have fewer rights under the law than others -- they all have equal access to contract with the opposite class. Then again depending on how you look at it, you could say all men miss out on the right afforded to women to contract with men, and all women miss out on the right afforded to men to contract with women.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's interesting that you put this in terms of sexes. I think it is sexist that men aren't afforded the right to contract with men and women are. That's actually an elegant expression of the law that has precedent(the 14th amendment covers sexism historically).
<!--quoteo(post=1692793:date=Nov 7 2008, 01:26 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 7 2008, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's interesting that you put this in terms of sexes. I think it is sexist that men aren't afforded the right to contract with men and women are. That's actually an elegant expression of the law that has precedent(the 14th amendment covers sexism historically).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how else you would put it other than in terms of sexes. If universally banning something only a small group of people actually desire is considered discriminatory to that small group, because only they WANT it even though everyone is equally prohibited from having it, then where does that leave our drug laws? Are we discriminating against druggies by banning cocaine and marijuana?
(Granted, there's a significant movement that says our drug laws are bad and should be repealed anyway, but I haven't heard the argument that controlling drugs is constitutionally discriminatory.)
So if you're going to take the discrimination angle, it pretty much has to be based on granting all men the current power of all women to contract with all men, not granting ###### men the current power of straight people to contract with other straight people.
That's a fine reason to explain to someone on their way to the polls to vote on the issue. It isn't going to fly quite as well when you tell a judge that the laws stopping you from doing whatever you want are wrong and should be thrown out, because you don't like them.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692794:date=Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know how else you would put it other than in terms of sexes. If universally banning something only a small group of people actually desire is considered discriminatory to that small group, because only they WANT it even though everyone is equally prohibited from having it, then where does that leave our drug laws? Are we discriminating against druggies by banning cocaine and marijuana?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realize you're implicitly comparing ###### people marrying to people doing cocaine right? Taking drugs is a choice, being attracted to the opposite sex is not. <!--quoteo(post=1692794:date=Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if you're going to take the discrimination angle, it pretty much has to be based on granting all men the current power of all women to contract with all men, not granting ###### men the current power of straight people to contract with other straight people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really see the problem with that. I'm perfectly happy to say "preventing ###### marriage is unconstitutional" on the face of it because you're denying rights to a group that are given to other people, but since we seem to be delving deeper into the arcane mysteries of constitutional law, I'm also fine with arguing that men not having the power to contract with of men(and women, women) is sexist.
I'd also say it violates the first amendment since it favors Christianity definition of marriage, but I'm not sure how provable that would be in a Court of Law.
<!--quoteo(post=1692797:date=Nov 7 2008, 09:07 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a fine reason to explain to someone on their way to the polls to vote on the issue. It isn't going to fly quite as well when you tell a judge that the laws stopping you from doing whatever you want are wrong and should be thrown out, because you don't like them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dunno. It worked in Roe v. Wade.
<!--quoteo(post=1692794:date=Nov 7 2008, 08:42 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know how else you would put it other than in terms of sexes. If universally banning something only a small group of people actually desire is considered discriminatory to that small group, because only they WANT it even though everyone is equally prohibited from having it, then where does that leave our drug laws? Are we discriminating against druggies by banning cocaine and marijuana?[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. The implication of drug laws is that we are protecting the users and others. Drugs are associated with crime (although much of it is arguably associated with the ban rather than a direct consequence of the drug itself), and are sometimes hazardous to the health of the user. Ailing people are a burden on society. The ban on drugs, at least as far as the argument goes, serves to protect society, both users and the uninvolved, from the various consequences of drug use. The ban on homosexual marriage serves no such purpose. It merely keeps out of the grasp of a minority a right that the majority has a comparable version of. In a free society, no man should be restricted any more than absolutely necessary. That is maximum freedom. Thus, in order to restrict a man from anything, you should first have to prove that this is necessary in the interest of society. This is why theft and murder are illegal. Similar reasoning cannot be applied to homosexual marriage. Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.
<!--quoteo(post=1692801:date=Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692801"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Florida loves and embraces freedom, as I'm certain the other states that banned ###### marriages do as well. Each of the 50 states in this United States is quite worthy of being part of it, thank you very much. But since you said so, I'll pass it on to my friends and neighbors. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
There are many other contracts that we restrict to certain people besides marriage: For example, we restrict people from signing employment contracts that do not offer a sufficient wage. We restrict people from signing insurance contracts unless they offer certain state-mandated benefits. In some cases we restrict people from becoming employed at all unless they first register membership with a union.
Most of these cases are excused by stating that we are protecting the signers from their own potential bad decisions, although that excuse shows very thin in some of these cases, especially with regard to unions. In the case of marriage, we can't claim to be protecting the signers, but in the case of marriage it is no longer only a 2-party contract. In addition to the two primary parties, Marriage also draws a committment from the State, the Federal Government, and any number of other agencies to provide benefits in support of the contract. Thus we could make a case that we are protecting the interests of the non-signatory parties to the contract, which would be at least as strong as the case that we are protecting workers by banning them from getting jobs until they agree to pay Union dues.
Keep in mind all of this is from a purely legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary that the law be "good" or "smart" or "efficient", only "valid".
<!--quoteo(post=1692801:date=Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692801"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a free society, no man should be restricted any more than absolutely necessary. That is maximum freedom. Thus, in order to restrict a man from anything, you should first have to prove that this is necessary in the interest of society. This is why theft and murder are illegal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see where you're coming from lolfighter, but I have just a little tweak on that. It's not about restricting a man in the interest of society. It's about bringing to justice any individual who has directly harmed another individual or their property. If restrictions are imposed based on the interests of society, then why not ban video games? Certainly they don't contribute more to the common good than if you were out volunteering at your local homeless shelter or working with handicapped people. Actually, why should you be allowed to choose anything for yourself, as you will undoubtedly pick a career, for example, which does not maximally benefit society. If it's about what's best for society, shouldn't the government be passing and enforcing laws which dictate every aspect of your life? Oh, wait, what was that freedom thing about, again?
And who decides what's "best for society" anyway? I guess the people who voted for the marriage ban are such people. But would it be any better if there was a council of smart people, or a dictator deciding such things? Maybe they would be wise enough to know what is best. Or maybe that's not the proper role of government.
<!--quoteo(post=1692798:date=Nov 7 2008, 02:21 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 7 2008, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize you're implicitly comparing ###### people marrying to people doing cocaine right? Taking drugs is a choice, being attracted to the opposite sex is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both are a choice made by consenting adults, and both are banned by the government. And you can be attracted to whoever you want to be without the government caring one bit. You can even sleep with them without the government caring. The government only cares if you make the CHOICE to marry them in a court of law.
If that's still offensive to you, feel free to substitute any other choice made by consenting adults that the law still bans. I provided several more examples above.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd also say it violates the first amendment since it favors Christianity definition of marriage, but I'm not sure how provable that would be in a Court of Law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be completely indefensible in a court of law. If a law was to be invalid because the moral principles that drove people to vote for it were based in religion, two-thirds of our entire legal system would have to be thrown out. So far, you can't yet invalidate the decision of the voters because "they were idiots and voted for the wrong thing", and the same princple holds for "they were bigots and voted their religion".
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692803:date=Nov 7 2008, 03:45 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many other contracts that we restrict to certain people besides marriage: For example, we restrict people from signing employment contracts that do not offer a sufficient wage. We restrict people from signing insurance contracts unless they offer certain state-mandated benefits. In some cases we restrict people from becoming employed at all unless they first register membership with a union.
Most of these cases are excused by stating that we are protecting the signers from their own potential bad decisions, although that excuse shows very thin in some of these cases, especially with regard to unions. In the case of marriage, we can't claim to be protecting the signers, but in the case of marriage it is no longer only a 2-party contract. In addition to the two primary parties, Marriage also draws a commitment from the State, the Federal Government, and any number of other agencies to provide benefits in support of the contract. Thus we could make a case that we are protecting the interests of the non-signatory parties to the contract, which would be at least as strong as the case that we are protecting workers by banning them from getting jobs until they agree to pay Union dues.
Keep in mind all of this is from a purely legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary that the law be "good" or "smart" or "efficient", only "valid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll be honest, I don't get exactly what you're going for here. These restrictions have nothing to do with the people themselves, unlike marriage. There can't be any employement restriction wrt race, religion, sex, etc and that's closer to what we're talking about. The tacks that it discriminates against ###### people and is sexist still hold. Also, are you saying we have to protect the state from ###### marriage? How is it inherently riskier than any other marriage?(hint: it's not, and is offensive to say so to boot)
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692805:date=Nov 7 2008, 03:53 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Both are a choice made by consenting adults, and both are banned by the government. And you can be attracted to whoever you want to be without the government caring one bit. You can even sleep with them without the government caring. The government only cares if you make the CHOICE to marry them in a court of law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Being ###### isn't just about what happens in the bedroom. It's about being in a stable monogamous relationship with a person who happens to be the same sex. Marriage is a part of that. You're not giving them the choice to marry in a court of law, you're taking away that choice through discrimination.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1692799:date=Nov 7 2008, 08:22 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 08:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692799"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dunno. It worked in Roe v. Wade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692799:date=Nov 7 2008, 02:22 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692799"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dunno. It worked in Roe v. Wade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No it didn't. The judges in Roe v. Wade didn't go "well it looks like people disagree with limits on abortion, let's get rid of them!" It was a legal thing based in the right to privacy.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
The easiest thing I can say about California's vote for/against Prop 8 was that the "For" side lied every step of the way. There were commercials for everything from teachers teaching kids to be ###### to 'joking' mentions of ###### people having sex on their front lawn.
Or perhaps we should bring up how the official Yes on 8 campaign blackmailed over 200 companies that donated by threatening that if they didn't donate an equal(or more) amount of money to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would send a newsletter with their company name saying that they encourage ###### marriage and kids to be ######, as well as everything else they associated the "No" campaign with.
Frankly, if it wasn't for that bull######, it would have gotten rejected 60/40.
<!--quoteo(post=1692838:date=Nov 7 2008, 07:54 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 7 2008, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The easiest thing I can say about California's vote for/against Prop 8 was that the "For" side lied every step of the way. There were commercials for everything from teachers teaching kids to be ###### to 'joking' mentions of ###### people having sex on their front lawn.
Or perhaps we should bring up how the official Yes on 8 campaign blackmailed over 200 companies that donated by threatening that if they didn't donate an equal(or more) amount of money to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would send a newsletter with their company name saying that they encourage ###### marriage and kids to be ######, as well as everything else they associated the "No" campaign with.
Frankly, if it wasn't for that bull######, it would have gotten rejected 60/40.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Afaik there was no such negative advertising/lobbying in Florida. I only saw one commercial regarding this and it was weak, not influential whatsoever.
The people of Florida and the other states that banned homosexual marriages cannot claim to love and embrace freedom as long as they arbitrarily strip freedom away from minorities they don't like. And Depot, you have my blessing to pass just that on to your friends and neighbours, along with my apologies, sympathy and condolences if AND ONLY IF they had the guts to vote AGAINST bigotry. Otherwise, do give them a contemptuous glare on my behalf.
juice, it's not about restricting freedom whenever you can, it's about restricting freedom only when you HAVE TO. I said "no man should be restricted any more than absolutely necessary." That is why we forbid theft and murder, but allow an intelligent man to squander his potential by working the cash register at Wal-Mart when he had the potential to become a brilliant researcher. He has the freedom to do so. It is his choice to make whether he wants to squander his potential, not society's.
I passed on your contemptuous glare lolf. They asked me if you're a Baptist, or live anywhere in the "bible belt". <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Comments
All men [and women] are created equal(Declaration of Independence, I know). The "freedom to kill' isn't a freedom because you're taking away someone else's rights, namely "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Over 200 years later people are still having trouble with the "all men are created equal" part.
Of course the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better then people seem to treat it, and just because a group of people voted to suppress a groups rights doesn't make it constitutional. It's a textbook case, one religion is forcing the gov't to adhere to it's definition of marriage. There's no "crazy interpretation" especially since freedoms <i>are clear cut</i>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can become an ordained minister and perform marriages as much as I feel like, between any things I feel like it, and it will all be perfectly legal, and no one can stop me. HOWEVER, those things I have married are not in the legal contract of marriage, and thus gain none of the LEGAL benefits of marriage.
Hell, I could go and get my self ordained as a Minister of Discordia and marry ELost and Lolf. They can go around calling each other Husband and no one can stop them. They can't claim the tax rights and what not, but they are married in the eyes Eris. (I in fact do have a friend who is a Discordian minister and has performed one or 2 legal marriages as well <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Thus, it isn't a question of being constitutional or not. Hell, it would be unconstitutional for any local/state/national govn't (in the US) to do ANYTHING with marriage if it was a a religious thing (yay for separation of church and state).
Another good example of this is that I have a pair of friends who are legally married but have not done the whole church thing yet (and thus are not married in the eyes of their god).
I can become an ordained minister and perform marriages as much as I feel like, between any things I feel like it, and it will all be perfectly legal, and no one can stop me. HOWEVER, those things I have married are not in the legal contract of marriage, and thus gain none of the LEGAL benefits of marriage.
Hell, I could go and get my self ordained as a Minister of Discordia and marry ELost and Lolf. They can go around calling each other Husband and no one can stop them. They can't claim the tax rights and what not, but they are married in the eyes Eris. (I in fact do have a friend who is a Discordian minister and has performed one or 2 legal marriages as well <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Thus, it isn't a question of being constitutional or not. Hell, it would be unconstitutional for any local/state/national govn't (in the US) to do ANYTHING with marriage if it was a a religious thing (yay for separation of church and state).
Another good example of this is that I have a pair of friends who are legally married but have not done the whole church thing yet (and thus are not married in the eyes of their god).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, but prop 8 and the rest have nothing to do with the church definition of marriage and everything to do with the state definition of marriage and anyone that tells you otherwise is ignorant of the truth or lying to get you to support state bigotry. That's why it's unconstitutional to define the legal definition of marriage according to a specific religion and why prop 8 and the rest are unconstitutional.
Said another way, a legal definition of marriage is still a separation of church and state as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's beliefs(separation of church and state comes from the first amendment.) The state's definition of marriage never affects the churches definition of marriage. The state definition of marriage does not stop people from being married in the eyes of their god, and as that would imply, a state that allows ###### marriage does not force the church to marry people in the eyes of the your god because, as always, the church is a private institution. Prop 8 removes the right for specific couples to be married <i>legally</i> and the rights that go with that(specifically tax and adoption rights).
Prop 8 doesn't say:
"Only the Christian/Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/Discordian/Whatever view of marriage is acceptable, and thus ######s can't be married."
it says:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Thus, separation of church and state is upheld and it is constitutional. Just because the belief stems from a religious belief doesn't make it unconstitutional. It is a representation of the people's moral beliefs (laws are simply a codified set of moral rules). If we were going to say that we can't have any laws based on religious beliefs then I would like to point you to the 10 commandments (thou shalt not kill is one of them iirc). So, ok, you can counter that with "well, the 'sanctity of marriage' is only a religious belief" which I counter with an atheist who hates ######s.
Also, if our system of govn't refuses to accept views simply because they are based on religion, then it isn't the govn't that I want.
All true, and all very unfortunate.
Prop 8 doesn't say:
"Only the Christian/Catholic/Islamic/Jewish/Discordian/Whatever view of marriage is acceptable, and thus ######s can't be married."
it says:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The contradiction is "marriage is between a man and a woman" and not "marriage is between two consenting adults" or whatever it was before. The Church of Discordia could define marriage as only between two men, but by no means should that be the legal definition of marriage. It fails the same way "between a man and a woman" fails.
Here's another way of looking at it. Let's say this forum is the Gov't of the United States of Charlie and we have a law that says all rights belong to the forum goers by default. Furthermore, it also has a law , we'll call it the 14th amendment, that states <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As we live in the US of C in the great state of Off Topic we must abide by these rules, but one day I start the religion of lolism and one of my rules is that people who have the name "<b>Thansal</b>" cannot be gloobered. That's fine because my religion is private and I can do what I want with it for the most part. The <b>Thansal</b>s say "Whatever, I can be gloobered in another religion, it doesn't matter". Let's say the state Off Topic says that people who are gloobered can bybass the forum filter a certain number of times each day. But because I lobby the Admins of Off Topic with lots of money I get the legal definition of gloobered to exclude <b>Thansal</b>s. It's pretty clear that the same right afforded other forum goers is being denied to <b>Thansal</b>s on the basis of religion, and that this abridgement of rights by default designated to the people goes against the 14th amendment, yes?
1) We have a right to marry how we see fit, and to receive the legal advantages of that union.
2) Because of 1 we can't redefine marriage based on other people's religious morals.
Part one I can't argue for or against. I am not familiar enough with the subject, however I think that it is generally accepted to not be the case (we don't have a right to marriage and the associated legal advantages, those are things granted to us by the state to encourage it).
Part 2 is what I have been arguing about. If we assume that 1 is false, then 2 is simply "we can't define marriage based on religious beliefs". If we assume that 1 is true, then it doesn't MATTER if it is based on religious beliefs or not, b/c it is unconstitutional in the first place.
If we assume that 1 is false then it doesn't matter where the moral decision that "Marriage is between one man and one woman" comes from, so long as the law doesn't say "We only recognize <insert religion name(s) here> marriages.", then it is constitutional. It is the state saying "We are creating a legal device called Marriage. It is the legal union of one man and one woman. They shall <insert rights/privileges/restrictions here>". Yes, I understand it is splitting hairs. but it is the same reason why our govn'ts (local/state/national) can do things like:
Restrict the sale of alcohol/tobacco. (we still have dry towns)
Define the age of consent.
Have legal marriages (As in, sponsored by the state).
BTW:
Please remember that I deplore the banning of ###### marriage, I am totally disappointed in the 3 states that passed those ballot options, I hope and pray that there WAS foul play going on and that it can be proven, etc etc etc. I am arguing this because I believe that the line we are discussing is an important one for protecting certain other parts of our rights. Kinda like the old (wrong) Voltaire quote.
When you reach that level of abstraction, it is neither clear that "that" is what's happening, nor clear that it is analogous to the situation in California.
Fundamentally, we really have two separate questions to ask of the Amendment: "Is it good?", and "Is it legal?" I'm not going to touch the "good" question with a 10-foot pole at the moment, but at least nominally that question is supposed to be answered by a vote of the people at the polls.
So that leaves the question of legality. And indeed we have a 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection. We also have a tradition that says "any A-category person can form this contract with any B-category person, with a few limitations as described by law." We also have a recent local court decision that says "you should also allow any A-category person to form that contract with another A-category person". And now we have an Amendment that says "the contract only counts if it includes one A-category person and one B-category person".
Does that violate the 14th amendment? It's kind of fuzzy. There aren't any people who are excluded from forming a contract. The limitation is only on who they are permitted to contract with. And there are several pre-existing limitations that are not challenged, so it is not the concept of limitations that is at question, only this particular limitation. There is no particular class of people who have fewer rights under the law than others -- they all have equal access to contract with the opposite class. Then again depending on how you look at it, you could say all men miss out on the right afforded to women to contract with men, and all women miss out on the right afforded to men to contract with women.
I hate you all!
people keep on managing to express exactly what I am saying in much better ways.
Ignore my cold and drug riddled ramblings, just look at what <b>Cxwf</b> said.
I know you said to address <b>Cxwf</b>, but this is important. It doesn't matter whether the rights are explicitly or implicitly abridged. They're defining marriage in such a way that it <i>happens</i> to not include a group of people and prevent them from gaining legal marriage status. That's just as unconstitutional as explicitly denying rights.
<!--quoteo(post=1692789:date=Nov 7 2008, 01:15 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So that leaves the question of legality. And indeed we have a 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection. We also have a tradition that says "any A-category person can form this contract with any B-category person, with a few limitations as described by law." We also have a recent local court decision that says "you should also allow any A-category person to form that contract with another A-category person". And now we have an Amendment that says "the contract only counts if it includes one A-category person and one B-category person".
Does that violate the 14th amendment? It's kind of fuzzy. There aren't any people who are excluded from forming a contract. The limitation is only on who they are permitted to contract with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're trying to argue that ###### people aren't prevented from forming the contract? I'll point to the Jim Crow laws. Similarly, black people in the south weren't prevented from voting, there were just many barriers to it. So a ###### couple(let's say men) would have to find a lesbian couple that is willing to live with them and hold up a pretence of marriage to get the same benefits a non-###### couple would. Basically the only way to get the benefits of a non-###### couple is to not be ######. It would have been like telling black people in the South they can vote as long as they put on makeup to look like a white person.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And there are several pre-existing limitations that are not challenged, so it is not the concept of limitations that is at question, only this particular limitation. There is no particular class of people who have fewer rights under the law than others -- they all have equal access to contract with the opposite class. Then again depending on how you look at it, you could say all men miss out on the right afforded to women to contract with men, and all women miss out on the right afforded to men to contract with women.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's interesting that you put this in terms of sexes. I think it is sexist that men aren't afforded the right to contract with men and women are. That's actually an elegant expression of the law that has precedent(the 14th amendment covers sexism historically).
I don't know how else you would put it other than in terms of sexes. If universally banning something only a small group of people actually desire is considered discriminatory to that small group, because only they WANT it even though everyone is equally prohibited from having it, then where does that leave our drug laws? Are we discriminating against druggies by banning cocaine and marijuana?
(Granted, there's a significant movement that says our drug laws are bad and should be repealed anyway, but I haven't heard the argument that controlling drugs is constitutionally discriminatory.)
So if you're going to take the discrimination angle, it pretty much has to be based on granting all men the current power of all women to contract with all men, not granting ###### men the current power of straight people to contract with other straight people.
You do realize you're implicitly comparing ###### people marrying to people doing cocaine right? Taking drugs is a choice, being attracted to the opposite sex is not.
<!--quoteo(post=1692794:date=Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 7 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if you're going to take the discrimination angle, it pretty much has to be based on granting all men the current power of all women to contract with all men, not granting ###### men the current power of straight people to contract with other straight people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see the problem with that. I'm perfectly happy to say "preventing ###### marriage is unconstitutional" on the face of it because you're denying rights to a group that are given to other people, but since we seem to be delving deeper into the arcane mysteries of constitutional law, I'm also fine with arguing that men not having the power to contract with of men(and women, women) is sexist.
I'd also say it violates the first amendment since it favors Christianity definition of marriage, but I'm not sure how provable that would be in a Court of Law.
I dunno. It worked in Roe v. Wade.
No. The implication of drug laws is that we are protecting the users and others. Drugs are associated with crime (although much of it is arguably associated with the ban rather than a direct consequence of the drug itself), and are sometimes hazardous to the health of the user. Ailing people are a burden on society. The ban on drugs, at least as far as the argument goes, serves to protect society, both users and the uninvolved, from the various consequences of drug use. The ban on homosexual marriage serves no such purpose. It merely keeps out of the grasp of a minority a right that the majority has a comparable version of.
In a free society, no man should be restricted any more than absolutely necessary. That is maximum freedom. Thus, in order to restrict a man from anything, you should first have to prove that this is necessary in the interest of society. This is why theft and murder are illegal. Similar reasoning cannot be applied to homosexual marriage.
Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.
Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Florida loves and embraces freedom, as I'm certain the other states that banned ###### marriages do as well. Each of the 50 states in this United States is quite worthy of being part of it, thank you very much. But since you said so, I'll pass it on to my friends and neighbors. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Most of these cases are excused by stating that we are protecting the signers from their own potential bad decisions, although that excuse shows very thin in some of these cases, especially with regard to unions. In the case of marriage, we can't claim to be protecting the signers, but in the case of marriage it is no longer only a 2-party contract. In addition to the two primary parties, Marriage also draws a committment from the State, the Federal Government, and any number of other agencies to provide benefits in support of the contract. Thus we could make a case that we are protecting the interests of the non-signatory parties to the contract, which would be at least as strong as the case that we are protecting workers by banning them from getting jobs until they agree to pay Union dues.
Keep in mind all of this is from a purely legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary that the law be "good" or "smart" or "efficient", only "valid".
I see where you're coming from lolfighter, but I have just a little tweak on that. It's not about restricting a man in the interest of society. It's about bringing to justice any individual who has directly harmed another individual or their property. If restrictions are imposed based on the interests of society, then why not ban video games? Certainly they don't contribute more to the common good than if you were out volunteering at your local homeless shelter or working with handicapped people. Actually, why should you be allowed to choose anything for yourself, as you will undoubtedly pick a career, for example, which does not maximally benefit society. If it's about what's best for society, shouldn't the government be passing and enforcing laws which dictate every aspect of your life? Oh, wait, what was that freedom thing about, again?
And who decides what's "best for society" anyway? I guess the people who voted for the marriage ban are such people. But would it be any better if there was a council of smart people, or a dictator deciding such things? Maybe they would be wise enough to know what is best. Or maybe that's not the proper role of government.
Both are a choice made by consenting adults, and both are banned by the government. And you can be attracted to whoever you want to be without the government caring one bit. You can even sleep with them without the government caring. The government only cares if you make the CHOICE to marry them in a court of law.
If that's still offensive to you, feel free to substitute any other choice made by consenting adults that the law still bans. I provided several more examples above.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd also say it violates the first amendment since it favors Christianity definition of marriage, but I'm not sure how provable that would be in a Court of Law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be completely indefensible in a court of law. If a law was to be invalid because the moral principles that drove people to vote for it were based in religion, two-thirds of our entire legal system would have to be thrown out. So far, you can't yet invalidate the decision of the voters because "they were idiots and voted for the wrong thing", and the same princple holds for "they were bigots and voted their religion".
Most of these cases are excused by stating that we are protecting the signers from their own potential bad decisions, although that excuse shows very thin in some of these cases, especially with regard to unions. In the case of marriage, we can't claim to be protecting the signers, but in the case of marriage it is no longer only a 2-party contract. In addition to the two primary parties, Marriage also draws a commitment from the State, the Federal Government, and any number of other agencies to provide benefits in support of the contract. Thus we could make a case that we are protecting the interests of the non-signatory parties to the contract, which would be at least as strong as the case that we are protecting workers by banning them from getting jobs until they agree to pay Union dues.
Keep in mind all of this is from a purely legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint, it is not necessary that the law be "good" or "smart" or "efficient", only "valid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll be honest, I don't get exactly what you're going for here. These restrictions have nothing to do with the people themselves, unlike marriage. There can't be any employement restriction wrt race, religion, sex, etc and that's closer to what we're talking about. The tacks that it discriminates against ###### people and is sexist still hold. Also, are you saying we have to protect the state from ###### marriage? How is it inherently riskier than any other marriage?(hint: it's not, and is offensive to say so to boot)
Being ###### isn't just about what happens in the bedroom. It's about being in a stable monogamous relationship with a person who happens to be the same sex. Marriage is a part of that. You're not giving them the choice to marry in a court of law, you're taking away that choice through discrimination.
Quite.
No it didn't. The judges in Roe v. Wade didn't go "well it looks like people disagree with limits on abortion, let's get rid of them!" It was a legal thing based in the right to privacy.
What's that? You're getting married? Aw, that's a good little citizen. Here's a treat for you...
Or perhaps we should bring up how the official Yes on 8 campaign blackmailed over 200 companies that donated by threatening that if they didn't donate an equal(or more) amount of money to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would send a newsletter with their company name saying that they encourage ###### marriage and kids to be ######, as well as everything else they associated the "No" campaign with.
Frankly, if it wasn't for that bull######, it would have gotten rejected 60/40.
Or perhaps we should bring up how the official Yes on 8 campaign blackmailed over 200 companies that donated by threatening that if they didn't donate an equal(or more) amount of money to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would send a newsletter with their company name saying that they encourage ###### marriage and kids to be ######, as well as everything else they associated the "No" campaign with.
Frankly, if it wasn't for that bull######, it would have gotten rejected 60/40.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Afaik there was no such negative advertising/lobbying in Florida. I only saw one commercial regarding this and it was weak, not influential whatsoever.
juice, it's not about restricting freedom whenever you can, it's about restricting freedom only when you HAVE TO. I said "no man should be restricted any more than absolutely necessary." That is why we forbid theft and murder, but allow an intelligent man to squander his potential by working the cash register at Wal-Mart when he had the potential to become a brilliant researcher. He has the freedom to do so. It is his choice to make whether he wants to squander his potential, not society's.