Amendment One Passes in NC

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by jtgain

My position is evolving.

Well at least on this you're in good company. The President's position is evolving as well (to his shame, IMO).

As to this result - it was painfully obvious what was going to happen. I'm just glad they did it now instead of in November. Gives the religious right one less reason to come out to vote for the Mormon, and makes Obama's job of holding the state easier.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by jtgain

My position is evolving. I apologize if the OP seems like a taunt. The only thing I am taunting is posters on this board that just can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue, without resort to insults to one side.

Yes, I just can't understand why people can't see there are two sides to child molestation, or wife beating, or lynching.

Some things there just aren't two sides to, or at least there aren't two sides that both have respectability, in the "opinions can differ among good-hearted people on this" sense. If you are in favor of preventing two non-related consenting adults who happen to both be the same gender from forming a family with the same protections that two non-related consenting adults who happen to be two different gender have, you're wrong. Period. There is no "other side" to that. In 25 years, you're going to be seen the same way that Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Orval Faubus, who were that "honorable other side" of the Civil Rights Movement, are today.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Yes, I just can't understand why people can't see there are two sides to child molestation, or wife beating, or lynching.

This is rich. You equate someone not advocating SSM with murder and two clear crimes, yet when the debate about SSM even touches on the slipper slope of polygamy or bestiality being next (and not equating anything), you have your hissy fit.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

This is rich. You equate someone not advocating SSM with murder and two clear crimes, yet when the debate about SSM even touches on the slipper slope of polygamy or bestiality being next (and not equating anything), you have your hissy fit.

An analogy isn't a slippery slope argument.

[John Mace]

Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions?

I hope he's asked something like that in the debates. This "evolving" crap should be beneath him.

As for NC, I don't think anyone is surprised. The anti-civil unions clause takes this to a new low, though.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Marley23

An analogy isn't a slippery slope argument.

I didn't say it did. My point was that jay jay was analogizing, while the mention of polygamy and bestiality in the slippery slope argument is not equating SSM with either. The comical part is that he and others of his opinion get apoplectic when the slippery slope argument is explored but it's just fine and dandy for him to compare being against SSM to being for child molesting, wife beating, and lynching.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions?

I hope he's asked something like that in the debates. This "evolving" crap should be beneath him.

As for NC, I don't think anyone is surprised. The anti-civil unions clause takes this to a new low, though.

I agree that that would be a great question. I also agree that the anti-civil unions clause sucks. That's why I'm torn on this result. But, as I have been advocating for years on these boards, I think the SS couples should be arguing for Civil Unions, as that route has a much better chance of gaining them the rights and privileges married couples enjoy and SS couples deserve. It's an argument that takes the moral high-ground and would have MUCH less opposition. But when that side INSISTS on "marriage", this is the kind of push back that is going to happen.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I didn't say it did.

Then there is no irony in jayjay's post. A slippery slope argument and an analogy are two different things; objecting to a particular stupid slippery slope argument does not mean you can't use an analogy.

Originally Posted by magellan01

It's an argument that takes the moral high-ground

This is where I should be saying "Thanks for the laugh." In an argument where one group of people wants to be allowed to marry as they wish and another group says "You can't," the moral high ground is not up for grabs.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I agree that that would be a great question. I also agree that the anti-civil unions clause sucks. That's why I'm torn on this result. But, as I have been advocating for years on these boards, I think the SS couples should be arguing for Civil Unions, as that route has a much better chance of gaining them the rights and privileges married couples enjoy and SS couples deserve. It's an argument that takes the moral high-ground and would have MUCH less opposition. But when that side INSISTS on "marriage", this is the kind of push back that is going to happen.

I disagree with this on every point. Legally, marriage is so entwined with our laws and customs that trying to define civil unions as having the same rights and privileges would be a logistic nightmare. Morally, it would give total permission for those who insist upon marriage as a moral union that overrides all other considerations to continue to look down from a superior moral position. Logically, marriage is already completely secular in the U.S., so the proper course if this is wanted would be to eliminate marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions, obviously a untenable position for the moralists.

Marriage is marriage precisely because our history of religiously-imposed morality has made it so. Separating some marriages from marriages because of religiously-imposed objections is the worst possible solution.

Fortunately, as others have said, this is a meaningless argument for the long term. SSM is the future and the future always happens.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Revtim

Hell, I'll go on record to say there isn't two reasonable sides.

If a same sex marriage had some negative effect on the people not in the marriage, besides "ew gross!", then there would be two reasonable sides to the issue.

It is actually *less* reasonable than denying women or blacks the right to vote. The people who were against those civil rights at least had the self serving goal of not wanting to give up some political power. The anti SSM marriage people cannot even claim that type of slimy self-interest.

Well, you see, if a same-sex couple get married they will be able to avail themselves of a tax-break, and if there's one thing conservatives hate it's when people pay less in taxes. Causes deficits, don't you know.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions?

I hope he's asked something like that in the debates. This "evolving" crap should be beneath him.

Politics is never "beneath" a politician. If Obama leads on this issue, he'll hand the GOP one of the few remaining wedge issues that might actually help them in legislative races across the country (as happened in 2004, mentioned above). So far, he's managing to advance LGBT rights without stimulating a reactionary reflex from the wingers.

He's not being careful in order to attract bigoted voters or to avoid alienating bigoted voters already in his camp. He's trying not to do Republicans' work for them in rallying their reactionary base.

The GOP is sinking right now, and BHO keeps turning their usual flotation devices into anvils. Sneer at him if you want, but if he comes out strongly for SSM he'll do more to delay it than he could ever do to bring it about.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Rights for minorities shouldn't be up for popular vote.

I disagree, but I'm an ideologue of democracy. I think that representative democracy should be replaced by consensus and that well publicised debates with neutral framing of the issues should precede every vote of some significance. I'd also support requiring a supermajority (of say 80%) to pass or amend a Constitutional amendment granting or declining rights to minorities.

As for whether this issue can be debated reasonably without resorting to insults: I think this thread provides a good example of that.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by jtgain

See Exhibits A, B, and C above. That's why I have no interest in debating this. The other side has no interest in a debate, but simply resorts to name calling or a Pit thread.

You're right. Please put forth your case for why Jews ought to be required to wear yellow stars, and I'll be sure to consider it with all the respect it deserves. Or would you prefer to argue that women ought not be allowed to drive?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Then there is no irony in jayjay's post. A slippery slope argument and an analogy are two different things; objecting to a particular stupid slippery slope argument does not mean you can't use an analogy.

But the analogy is more inflammatory, as it's actually comparing the two disparate things. Which is the very objection raised in the slippery slope argument, i.e., "how dare you "compare" SSM to polygamy or bestiality?", when that is NOT what is being done.

Try taking off you SSM hat and putting on your logic cap.

Originally Posted by Marley23

This is where I should be saying "Thanks for the laugh." In an argument where one group of people wants to be allowed to marry as they wish and another group says "You can't," the moral high ground is not up for grabs.

So, you don't see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I disagree with this on every point. Legally, marriage is so entwined with our laws and customs that trying to define civil unions as having the same rights and privileges would be a logistic nightmare. Morally, it would give total permission for those who insist upon marriage as a moral union that overrides all other considerations to continue to look down from a superior moral position. Logically, marriage is already completely secular in the U.S., so the proper course if this is wanted would be to eliminate marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions, obviously a untenable position for the moralists.

Marriage is marriage precisely because our history of religiously-imposed morality has made it so. Separating some marriages from marriages because of religiously-imposed objections is the worst possible solution.

Fortunately, as others have said, this is a meaningless argument for the long term. SSM is the future and the future always happens.

Something about how "separate but equal" didn't work in the past either.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, you don't see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position?

Yes, I do. Which is why I called for civil unions to entirely replace marriage.

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Something about how "separate but equal" didn't work in the past either.

I thought about using that phrase; thank you for understanding.

I've said before that in 50 years we will find it as incomprehensible that SSM was barred as we do now that interracial marriage was barred. But that won't eliminate religious bias any more than racism has been eliminated. It will just shift in an endless series of rearguard actions.

Shame on what you just thought.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Yes, I do. Which is why I called for civil unions to entirely replace marriage.


I thought about using that phrase; thank you for understanding.

I've said before that in 50 years we will find it as incomprehensible that SSM was barred as we do now that interracial marriage was barred. But that won't eliminate religious bias any more than racism has been eliminated. It will just shift in an endless series of rearguard actions.

Shame on what you just thought.

It's an all or nothing proposition. You can't say that some get to have a status and others can't. You can't say that some get to have a status and others can have that status, but by a different name (both, as far as the law is concerned). Either everyone gets marriage or nobody gets marriage and everyone gets civil unions. Those are the only two "acceptable" answers, with one being more palatable than the other.

The problem is, when it gets put on the ballot in some states, and people get to democratically state what they want about it, the waters get muddied, because then the only one that can step in is the federal government.


It's an age problem. My generation overwhelmingly approves of it, or at least sees no reason to restrict it. Also, it's a lot to ask people that are being affected by it to essentially "wait their turn", especially with regards to basic civil rights issues.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Try taking off you SSM hat and putting on your logic cap.

Try making a coherent objection.

So, you don't see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position?

No, I think it's nonsense - not because I fail to see it, but because I see it's a waste of time. They already have the high ground. Forcing them toward higher and higher ground is just a way of adding to their burdens and making it harder for them to get what they're seeking. It's only pretending to help. They are already correct and already have the high ground. They don't need more high ground, and they don't need additional burdens and increasingly difficult standards or smaller demands that won't get them more votes. We could spend all day making up ways to drum up more sympathy for gays who want to get married, but what's the point? They're not asking for marriage rights because they're exemplary people - they want those rights because they're people. Straight people don't have to be exemplary to get married; gay people shouldn't have to be either. They've already proved that to a lot of people, and not that long from now, a much larger chunk of voters will recognize it.

[tim-n-va]

Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn't it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations.

[elbows]

You're either equal or you're not, that's why.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Politics is never "beneath" a politician.

You just handed a blank check to every politician on the right. I'm sure they're very greatful.

If Obama leads on this issue, he'll hand the GOP one of the few remaining wedge issues that might actually help them in legislative races across the country (as happened in 2004, mentioned above). So far, he's managing to advance LGBT rights without stimulating a reactionary reflex from the wingers.

A leader leads. He could lead the nation in breaking down on of the last bastions of discrimination in this country. If he's not up to the task, we should find someone who is.

He's not being careful in order to attract bigoted voters or to avoid alienating bigoted voters already in his camp. He's trying not to do Republicans' work for them in rallying their reactionary base.

The GOP is sinking right now, and BHO keeps turning their usual flotation devices into anvils. Sneer at him if you want, but if he comes out strongly for SSM he'll do more to delay it than he could ever do to bring it about.

That might have been true 10 years ago, but I think the time is well past for tiptoeing around this subject. If he wants to play politics with it, he should look at how it will rally the youth vote.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn't it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations.

But then what happens to all of those married couples that were married by the justice of the peace, or at a non-religious ceremony, or by a ship's captain for that matter.

Would all of these couples have to then call what they have a civil union instead of a marriage? Would they still be able to talk about when they were married, or would they then have to refer to that date as when they were civilly united?

That would be saying that you can't get married if you aren't religious, wouldn't it? I'm not sure that's better really. Ultimately its just a word, but that being the case, why can't whoever wants to use the word use it? Its not like there are a finite number of marriages available and if teh gays take some, then there's less available for the straights right?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn't it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations.

We've done this many, many times here. That would only validate the claim that gays are trying to change marriage.

[Marley23]

I think you missed the point, Airbeck. He's talking about how the law treats these relationships - meaning they are civil unions whether they are between a man and a woman or two men or two women, whether they were performed in a church by a priest or in a civil ceremony without clergy. People can call them whatever they like. Logical as it may be, it's a non-starter because of what John Mace said: people will say the gays are trying to not only change the definition of marriage, but stop straight people from getting married.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by jtgain

My position is evolving. I apologize if the OP seems like a taunt. The only thing I am taunting is posters on this board that just can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue, without resort to insults to one side.

The other side is bigotry and ignorance, and deserves to be mocked and marginalized. There is no valid reason to enshrine this type of discrimination anywhere in the US, yet people do it. Those are sad, hateful people.

[tim-n-va]

Originally Posted by John Mace

We've done this many, many times here. That would only validate the claim that gays are trying to change marriage.

You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn't wanted.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn't wanted.

One argument at a time. The argument is that letting gay couples get married doesn't change any marriages between straight people, which it doesn't. Redefining all marriages as civil unions arguably does because it more clearly draws a line between the legal and religious aspects of marriage, and certainly you can see some people would freak out about that. That marriage has changed over time is not really in question and only people with a very limited and flawed perspective on history have trouble with that.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn't wanted.

I meant changed existing marriages or those going forward for heterosexuals. That's the specious claim that is made now, but that would be valid if we followed your suggestion.

Frankly, I think it's a good idea, but the country as a whole is waaaaaay far from agreeing on that.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions?

I hope he's asked something like that in the debates. This "evolving" crap should be beneath him.

As for NC, I don't think anyone is surprised. The anti-civil unions clause takes this to a new low, though.

Wow. Maybe he will be asked Today.

President Obama will discuss same-sex marriage in an exclusive interview today with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. With his "evolving" position in the spotlight, here's a look back at the various positions he has held on the issue: from appearing to support the unions as a young state senate candidate, opposing them outright as a matter of faith in 2004, to suggesting a shift in line with public opinion:

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I think the SS couples should be arguing for Civil Unions, as that route has a much better chance of gaining them the rights and privileges married couples enjoy and SS couples deserve.

So suppose rather than the 14th amendment we had an amendment that said

Although not citizens, all negros born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are declared naturalzed negros 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 naturalized negros of the United States to be different from that of citizens; nor shall any State deprive any naturalized negro of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any naturalized negro within its jurisdiction protection of the law equal to that of citizens.

etc....

you wouldn't object?.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by John Mace

You just handed a blank check to every politician on the right. I'm sure they're very greatful.

"Blank check" to do... what? Practice politics? You might not have noticed, but that's a check they don't need to receive from me, they get it from their respective electorate each and every term of office.

A leader leads. He could lead the nation in breaking down on of the last bastions of discrimination in this country. If he's not up to the task, we should find someone who is.

This tantrum gets more and more foolish. Go find "someone" who's up to the task of actually moving legislatures solely on the strength of his or her own convictions, much less legislatures his/her highly moral public stance has helped push into the control of an intractable opposition party.

If he wants to play politics with it, he should look at how it will rally the youth vote.

That may be a gambit he takes today in his interview with ABC. I hope so, as it means he sees a way to get legislative support through that tactic. But until and unless the "youth vote" can directly pass laws through Congress, it's just juvenile to whine about a leader's use of politics to translate an ideal -whether popularly supported or not- into legislative action. That's what politics is for, dammit.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

"Blank check" to do... what? Practice politics? You might not have noticed, but that's a check they don't need to receive from me, they get it from their respective electorate each and every term of office.

A blank check to be excused from doing the right thing in favor of politics.

This tantrum gets more and more foolish.

I don't know how on earth you could think what I wrote was a "tantrum".

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by John Mace

A blank check to be excused from doing the right thing in favor of politics.

Baloney. Accepting political realities and applauding my President's ability to work within those realities to affect incremental positive change doesn't translate into approval of Romneyesque political malleability.

I don't know how on earth you could think what I wrote was a "tantrum".

You wrote, on the subject of a single issue which, depending on how the POTUS handles his public stances can be used by extremists as an effective wedge: "If he's not up to the task, we should find someone who is." That's classic poutrage, and just dumb.

[Chronos]

One thing that often gets overlooked in this debate: We often talk about what government should and should not do, and that's proper. It's reasonable to say that the government should not prohibit gay marriage. But there's an even more fundamental question, what the government can and can not do. Not only should the government not ban SSM, but it can't. If two people decide to get married, and go through with something they consider to be a marriage, then there's no mortal agency that can stop them. Now, the government can (but should not) decide not to recognize certain marriages, but that's a different thing than actually stopping them.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Now, the government can (but should not) decide not to recognize certain marriages, but that's a different thing than actually stopping them.

Weren't people in mixed-race marriages arrested? *checks*

Yes, Virginia arrested the Lovings, and they were found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison (suspended).

Am I misunderstanding you?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I disagree, but I'm an ideologue of democracy. I think that representative democracy should be replaced by consensus and that well publicised debates with neutral framing of the issues should precede every vote of some significance. I'd also support requiring a supermajority (of say 80%) to pass or amend a Constitutional amendment granting or declining rights to minorities.

Rights don't exist except by what societies grant, so ultimately a society decides what rights there are. But deciding that members of that society don't get a right isn't something that should be put up to a vote.

This is exactly the same thing as saying that the right to bear arms (which I'm not a fan of, personally, but our society grants it anyway) doesn't apply to people of Dutch descent.

No amount of voting should allow that, unless you can demonstrate some compelling reason.

And there has never been a reason to disallow SSM that was based on a rational argument. Magellan, for instance, has argued to disallow same sex couples from marrying in perhaps twenty or more threads and thousands of posts, and he has never once given a reason for it that is in the least rational.

Neither has anyone else.

[tim-n-va]

If it were my choice, SSM would be the law in every state. At least some people suggesting that civil unions would be easier to pass aren't opposed to SSM they just realize that if you ask an all-or-nothing question, you might get nothing.

Regarding the 14th amendment hypothetical, it would definitely depend on the context. If there was no way to get the 14th passed in a given political climate, the text suggested would be an acceptable middle ground to hold until the political climate changes.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Baloney. Accepting political realities and applauding my President's ability to work within those realities to affect incremental positive change doesn't translate into approval of Romneyesque political malleability.

You have a much greater ability to rationalize this than I do. As I said, this might have been true 10 years ago, but I think we're well past that. At some point you have to abandon such a fearful position.

You wrote, on the subject of a single issue which, depending on how the POTUS handles his public stances can be used by extremists as an effective wedge: "If he's not up to the task, we should find someone who is." That's classic poutrage, and just dumb.

It's "only" the single most important civil rights issue of our age. If can't lead on that, he's no leader. And it was a rhetorical remark, since it's not going to happen. He's already secured the Democratic nomination. What's "dumb" is dismissing an argument as a tantrum.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by tim-n-va

At least some people suggesting that civil unions would be easier to pass aren't opposed to SSM they just realize that if you ask an all-or-nothing question, you might get nothing.

The progress that's been made on gay rights issues over the last 10 years or so indicates that this is no longer true (if it ever was). SSM opponents realize the same thing, which is why they've been working on these pre-emptive state constitutional amendments that are just going to get shamefacedly overturned a couple of decades from now.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by John Mace

You have a much greater ability to rationalize this than I do. As I said, this might have been true 10 years ago, but I think we're well past that. At some point you have to abandon such a fearful position.

You can't do anything in a democracy without winning elections. That's not a "fearful position" of yesteryear.

What's "dumb" is dismissing an argument as a tantrum.

What's dishonest is mischaracterizing my disagreement with your argument as a dismissal of it. I've addressed your points as I understand them. You, on the other hand, continue to handwave the despised politics of the issue away as if they're minor obstacles to the resolution of institutionalized discrimination, when in the fact they're the very heart of the problem.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Hells yeah, Mr. President!

[Marley23]

Obama said this afternoon that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, so we'll see where this discussion goes next.

[Wargamer]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I don't even know if I bothered to mark that race on the ballot. I probably did, but out of habit--who cares about it, except for a few pitiful Republicans desperate to twist some stats to make a cheap shot?

And yeah, although the vote went exactly the way I expected it to, I wish I could think better of my fellow North Carolinians.

Another North Carolinian who is today ashamed of his small-minded homophobic fellow citizens.

[xenophon41]

Good for the President. I hope this inspires more "D" voters than "R".

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Good for the President. I hope this inspires more "D" voters than "R".

I do too, but I think at some point he just had to say "politics be damned, I need to be on the right side of history." Like LBJ and AL.

[yorick73]

Well Obama didn't think marriage was a civil right in 2004 and still does not believe that it is.

From 2004

Originally Posted by Obama

I don't think marriage is a civil right

Today he still believes it should be up to the states to decide.

Originally Posted by Yahoo story

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

He's still riding the fence. He can't even decisively flip-flop.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

I do too, but I think at some point he just had to say "politics be damned, I need to be on the right side of history." Like LBJ and AL.

I like Obama generally, but I have no doubt that his decision to support SSM wasn't completely the result of political reasoning, and any resemblance to his actual feelings on the matter are coincidental.

[Chronos]

Quoth bup:

Weren't people in mixed-race marriages arrested? *checks*

Yes, Virginia arrested the Lovings, and they were found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison (suspended).

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, the government arrested them, but that didn't change the fact that they were still married. Arresting people for getting married is something the government can do. Stopping people from getting married is not.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by yorick73

He can't even decisively flip-flop.

Yeah, darn guy I'm always complaining about can't do anything right!

[bup]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yes, the government arrested them, but that didn't change the fact that they were still married. Arresting people for getting married is something the government can do. Stopping people from getting married is not.

If the government can punish an action, to the point of incarceration, I don't see what your point is.

The government probably can't stop me from doing a whole lot of illegal things. It can only punish me afterward, and take away my civil rights.

Your distinction is...well, I don't see the point. It makes no material difference.