And this is why this topic is so difficult to discuss. A word like “discriminate” has a perfectly benign definition, and one that has great baggage. So the game is to trap the opponent to agree to the fact that they are “discriminating” (benign definition, as in drawing a distinction) but then saddle them with the baggage.
Come on, Miller. It get’s old. You know the game that gets played this way.
No, not really. Why not? Just as in racial equality in the eyes of the law, I believe it’s simply a matter of time before we have full gender equality. A few states are leading the way, Massachusetts and Connecticut being two, as far as I can tell. Honestly, I was quite surprised that Hawaii didn’t go the same way.
The problem with non-federal legislation is that gays are still not granted the same protections as straights are. They may be married in Massachusetts, but once they step foot out of Mass., they are not. Not the same for a straight person, is it? Say, I’m a married lesbian working in Connecticut and my company decides to transfer me to California. So, in order to keep my legal rights with regard to my marriage, I have to turn down the job and possibly injure my livelihood? Would a straight person face that dilemma?
There is no reason to argue that gays aren’t entitled to the same rights and protections as anyone else, from a legal standpoint, across the board. If you feel they should be granted civil unions instead, then everyone should be granted civil unions, across the board. Not as a separate legal thing, but as the sole legal thing. There is a certain point in time that the federal government needs to step in and say that states do not have the right to legislate against people. Just like they did in the 1860s.
Like it or not, marriage is not solely a spiritual concept, it’s also a legal one, and it is simply wrong to deny it to a certain segment of the American population because religious people are freaked out about it. Remember, all men are created equal and have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness. A beautiful phrase in its simplicity.
That definition is so broad and nebulous as to be completely meaningless.
Sure, people in society have a right (if you want to call it that) to shape their society. But, in doing so, they should ask whether allowing or denying a specific right in any way infringes on the specific rights of other members of that society.
After all, your nebulous notion of the “right to shape society” could be applied equally well to any rights issue. For example, on the one hand, blacks in 1950s Arkansas had the right to vote and to attend non-segregated schools; on the other, the people in the South had the right to “shape that society.”
The argument about a general “right to shape society” is completely meaningless without a due consideration of what you take away from people in the process. The specific rights allowed or restricted in each case are far more important than some general right to shape society. And in this particular case, you’ve demonstrated no concrete harm to society that would accrue from allowing same-sex marriage, and offered nothing except vague semantic jugglings that completely ignore the way the term “marriage” has already changed over the years, the decades, and the centuries. It’s the worst kind of sophistry.
But what you are doing fits both definitions perfectly. Let’s look at M-W’s definition:
You are making a distinction (1a), but there is absolutely no denying that you are also doing (2). You are advocating “difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” There is simply no other way to parse your arguments. Hell, your own words have made very clear that this is precisely what you are doing.
There are nine differences between CA’s domestic partnerships and marriage. They are:
(1) common residence requirement for domestic partners, not applicable to spouses,
(2) application for lifting of the minimum age requirement not possible for domestic partners
(3) to register a domestic partnership the couple must file a declaration with the Secretary of State, whilst spouses must obtain a marriage licence from the county clerk
(4) possibility for confidential marriage in which marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made public, not applicable to domestic partners
(5) summary dissolution for domestic partnership initiated by filing joint notice of termination with Secretary of State, for summary dissolution of a
marriage is petitioned to the superior court
(6) residency requirements for dissolution are different providing for a forum necessitates for domestic partners
(7) differences with respect to the State Public Employee’s Retirement System
(8) difference in interpretation with regards
the property tax exemption for unmarried spouse of a veteran and
(9) putative spouse doctrine does not apply to domestic partners.
Would you be willing to give these things up? If not, why not? Why do you think you deserve them for being heterosexual and gays do not?
Except that you aren’t discriminating in the benign sense of the word, are you? You aren’t discriminating in the sense that you prefer Shakespeare to America’s Top Model. You’re discriminating in the sense that you think an identifiable minority should be treated differently under the law than the rest of society, to the acknowledged detriment of that minority.
You are correct. But neither of the dictionary definitions speak to the baggage, i.e., the negative connotations the word has, particularly when discussing a subject like this. Surely you’d acknowledge that.
And again, for those of you keeping track at home: magellan01 is the top poster to this thread, with 35 posts. The next most prolific poster here is Mr. Moto, with a mere 25. Clearly magellan01 still has that wild hair across his ass about gay marriage for no discernible reason that he will admit to. This is his pet issue, folks. We have had the same argument with him numerous times to no avail. I have to wonder why we bother.
I have no idea why these differences exist. I’d like to hear the rationale for each. I have no idea why the Secretary of State should be involved for one group and not the other. Something like #3 may actually be a good idea, but then I’d want to apply it to both groups. I’m of the mind that the exact same rules should apply to both groups. I would be willing to entertain a difference or two if it made sense, but I can’t imagine what that would be.
Shrug.
I don’t know. In the past, I made more “intelligent and in depth” remarks about it, but this time around iI just can’t be bothered anymore.
1 see horse
2 beat horse
3 horse dies
4 goto 2
Because the more magellan speaks out against gay marriage, the more gay marriage looks like a sensible policy.
I’m not so surprised that you would stoop so low. It would dawn on even the extremely dumb that my (and Mr. Moto) would probably have more posts than others for the simple, plain, and obvious fact that we are in a vast minority here. I’m having to respond to many different posters—
You know what, if you couldn’t figure out the reason for the math before hand, my explaining it to you will be time wasted. Now go construct some other ad hominems with your straw.
So much for “gays have absolutely the same rights as straights.”
I’m just going to disagree with you on this particular subject and leave it at that.
I’d say the more it becomes plain that it is not about “rights”. That gays who spout that are simply full of shit. You can give them all the “rights” in the universe. But if they can’t use that word, “Ew-ew-ew, I’m being discriminated against…I’m being discriminated against. Homophobia, homophobia! The world is so meeean.”
Wahwahfuckingwah.
You know, you don’t actually have to respond to every poster in this thread. Nor, for that matter, do you have to post in every one of these threads in the first place. But, almost invariably, when there’s a gay marriage thread, you’ll post to it, and equally invariably, you’ll end up spending a huge amount of time arguing the point. I don’t think it’s particularly stupid to wonder why you’re so deeply invested in an issue that you spend hours and hours debating it online, particularly when you keep saying you don’t expect to change anyone’s mind on the subject.
Keep rolling, man, keep rolling. It’s attitudes like this that are going to put us over the top in 2010.
Those differences are so minor as to not even matter. And they hardly qualify as “rights”. Show me where you have a right to have your relationship filed with the County Clerk instead of the Sec. of State. Grow up.
Oh, I will. And I’d like you to pat yourself on the back. You and others in these discussions have proven that this cry for rights is bullshit and I will be more involved next go around, not less. And donate more money, not less. The SDMB will go overwhelmingly for your fake cries for rights. We’ll see if the general populace will. Maybe I’ll even contribute my time to crafting marketing messages, which I’m pretty fucking good at. Thanks, all of you, for helping me focus.
There be lurkers. And I think the other side should be presented. I do regret allowing you and others to recruit me to assist in your hijack of the thread, though.