First, remember what we talked about with the quote boxes? It’s not acceptable to post the way you are, mixing other people’s words with your own. At very least, it’s inconvenient to read; you should have noticed that a moderator fixed some of your earlier posts; you should be doing that yourself. As it is, you are implying that my words are your own, which at very least is plagiarism and may, depending on the amount you take, be considered a violation of my copyright. You need to start attributing quotes, and by far the preferable way to do so is with quote boxes. If you don’t know how and honestly can’t figure it out, ask.
This statement is so staggeringly counterlogical that there is no point in discussing the matter further. You’re stating, quite simply, that if people disagree with you it’s evidence that you’re right. That’s a bizarre style of thinking.
Moderator’s Note:Randyjet, you do need to do a better job of indicating which words belong to you and which words belongs to the person you’re replying to. Although one can usually figure it out from close reading, it is a pain if you don’t do anything to set off your words from other posters’, and in a four-page thread hunting back to find the post you were quoting also gets annoying–and we’ve had threads in Great Debates that run to dozens of pages.
There are any number of ways to set off other people’s words from yours, but the easiest and most straightforward is to use the quote tags:
[quote]The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.[/quote]
becomes
By using this form:
[quote=William Shakespeare]To be or not to be, that is the question.[/quote]
You can create a quote block with attribution:
It’s important to include the close quote tag-- [**/quote] – at the end of each block of quoted text, or else the quote formatting won’t work.
If you want to interleave your comments with the other poster’s, put quote tags around each section of the other person’s post, like this:
Well, that’s easy for you to say.
This anti-Bandersnatchism is simply unacceptable in this day and age.
Do you have a cite for any of this?
And so on.
Finally, use the “Preview Post” button (immediately to the right of the “Submit Reply”) button to see what your post will look like before it actually goes on the boards, especially if there’s a lot of complex formatting in your post. I will most certainly be using it before I hit “Submit” on this post (even though I have the power to edit posts after the fact).
Well, “fascist” has a specific meaning; it’s not merely a synonym for statist. However, ignoring its being bandied as a quick-and-dirty insult, I’d be interested in knowing how you as an individual define your political stance, not in terms of “I’m a moderate Republican” or whatever, but in the broader Pournelle-Axes system.
I do not disagree that we have responsibilities as Americans, though I’d be hesitant to buy wholeheartedly into “we have an obligation to the country.” But your next sentence is the point at which we come to serious conflict. Americans do not have “rights that are enumerated and grounded in our traditions and laws.” We have rights that are, in the view of the FF, natural, inherent, and inalienable; the most that can happen is for an authoritarian government (like those imposed on the American colonies by George III and Lord North) to abridge and suppress them. Some of them are specified and hence guaranteed in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. Some of these the courts have regarded as “rights of citizens of the United States” which the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the states (as well as the Feds.) from abridging. But the Ninth Amendment stands as an explicit guarantee in the paramount law of the land that other rights than those enumerated exist, and that they are not “grounded in our traditions and laws” but underlie them.
Now if after the pages of argument in here you fail to see how this can be a moral question, I feel sorry for you, and that is neither snideness nor sarcasm, but honest compassion. Quite simply, there are some trans-cultural elements of morality that go beyond anyone’s religious or humanist code of ethics but seem to be characteristics inherent in the nature either of the universe or of human nature. For example, Li Erh’s maxim independently defined by Hillel and placed as a fundamental command of Jesus in Matthew 7:12, which shows up as a characteristic of other ethical systems from Seneca to the Senecas. “Whatever things you would choose that others should refrain from doing unto you, those also you should refrain from doing unto them. Whatever things you wish them to do unto you, do also unto them.”
I can, vaguely, grasp how someone of firm religious commitment might stand against gay marriage on the basis that “God ain’t gonna like this, Yogi.” To be sure, the ethical system on which this is founded is a legalistic one that more closely resembles the perversion of Pharisaic rabbinic Judaism that Jesus condemned than it does the Christianity that Jesus taught. (While Orthodox Jews whose ethics are founded on a more compassionate Pharisaic tradition will tell you it’s forbidden, they’re speaking of themselves, not of what they wish to impose on others.)
You are in fact correct that SSM is not something held to be a right by all. However, there is a fundamental disconnect here: an inability to take one’s native sense of fairness and compassion across artificially structured cultural lines.
Marriage is in fact a right. By law (case law from SCOTUS) and in common culture. While one may need to demonstrate that one is not breaking marriage laws and register said marriage with the state via a license, the issuance of such a license is administrative and not magisterial in nature: something a civil servant does on request, not something a magistrate grants in response to a prayer. 'Umbly beseeching Yer Lordship’s permission to marry is very much out of character for an American.
The other half of the picture is that we believe in equal justice under law. That’s carved over the door of the SCOTUS building, it underlies half the specific guarantees of rights we have – Americans have a sense of fairness. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I’d want a fair trial if I were in his shoes, so it’s my responsibility to make sure he gets one too. I don’t care who he is, he has a right to speak his mind. And so on.
You have the right to marry the spouse of your choice, subject only to a few basic restrictions with some logic behind each. It’s not just an abstract “right to marry someone of the opposite sex,” or we can say, “Fine, randyjet, you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The someone of the opposite sex you get is Roseanne Barr.” If there’s not an element of free choice in there, a common desire by the parties involved, it’s not a “real” right.
But for gay people, the idea that they’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex is distasteful – and useless – to them. Their native mental state, unchosen, is one where the person whom they are sexually attracted to, with whom they fall in love, whom they want for a life partner, is someone of the same sex as themselves – that’s what defines them as gay. Their right to contract a marriage with someone of the opposite sex is about as useful to them personally as your right under Lawrence to go out and offer your own rectum to be sodomized by [insert porn star name here] would be to you.
And note that this whole thing does not reduce to sex, or to procreation. A good marriage means a great deal more than those two related elements to the partners involved in it. I could fill several paragraphs with what my wife means to me, and I to her, without once addressing the issue of sexuality, though in a more complete discussion that would of course play a part.
Actually I go by the fact that 98.4% of all state Supreme court justices think that gay marriage is not a right. The only place where it is so considered is Mass and that may well be very short lived as well since only one of the justices who voted for it has to retire or die and it will likely be reversed. Also no we have no tradition or laws relating to that kind of a specific right either. It does not exist in our religious moral codes, nor our civil codes. I am not a lawyer nor a jurist, so I have to defer to those who are far more qualified than I in the law. I hardly think that is emotional. On the other hand, you and most of the proponents must all be lawyers and constitutional scholars to have the ability to say what the law is. If you are not a lawyer schooled in the laws, it takes a huge amount of conciet to say that they are all wrong. Now that is emotional to think that 98.4% of the constitutional judges in the US are all wrong, and you and your desires are right.
I can think of almost no item in law that commands such a massive weight of opinion on one side of a subject. Not to mention the fact that it goes against all of our previous moral religious, and civil codes. Now that requires a lot of emotion and lacks reasoning. My opinion is but that there are others far more knowledgeable than I on this subject, and they overwhelmingly state that it is not a right either in law or common law and usage or part of our rights. You would not dream of telling your doctor how to conduct an operation, yet when it involves something less pressing to your life you feel that you are expert enough to tell experienced and certified jurists what the law is. I find that simply incredible arrogance to say the least.
I was not aware I was so powerful. I rather thought it was because the ovewhelming judicial opinion and constitutional scholars in this country and the courts have not found that to be the case. That gays do not have the right to marry each other. Thanks for the attempted promotion though, but I don’t believe there is a God, and I sure as hell do not want to be one.
QUOTE]
The argument I am relying on is the fact that the overwhelming judicial and legal opinion of people far more qualified than I do NOT show any such rights existing. Now if you wish to press for legislation to change the law and grant such rights of gay to marry, that would be another matter entirely. I would still not be in favor of it, but I would be in favor of some form of civil unions or some other laws that would give us ALL more rights in setting up alternative legal remedies for buying properties jointly and the like. I might add that this is what Kerry and Kennedy’s position is on the subject as well. So I think that I am well within the mainstream of liberal opinion on this matter. Unless of course, you think that they too are fascists for not being in favor of gay marriage.
Thanks for the info on this system. I had not seen this before and it is a good one with the exception that I think the vertical axis should be attitude towards private property instead of rationalism. This would put Rand closer to the Nazis which I think would be more appropriate. It would also put the classical anarchists on the same side of the line as communists and socialists who tended to view them as comrades in the struggles of the last century. Their slogan that all property is theft is illustative of that. The Nazis considered private property to be near sacrosanct as well, as long as it conformed to the desires of the party and its officials.
My own definition is democratic socialist. I used to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party for many years, until it became less of a democratic party and more a cult. The leader is now the fount of all wisdom and policies, Jack Barnes and his followers.
I
."
Speaking as a veteran who lost some friends in war, I can say that not only do we have responsibilities to our country, but may actually have to give up our most important right, that of our lives to it.
I agree completely with that formulation. Those rights that are guaranteed by the ninth amendment are those which encompass those which essentially say the right to be left alone from governmental interference. I would call it the right to be left alone right. The problem I have is that marriage is a grant from the government, it is not something that you get when you are born as a citizen. The right to freedom of speech keeps government off of your back and commands it to do nothing against you. Marriage is asking the government to DO something for you, not leave you alone.
Basically the next part of the post stated the Golden rule. I am not asking folks to go out and kill gays, though I am sure that is what most of the people on this site irrationally believe. What is being asked is that the proponents of gay marriage ask others to give up their beliefs in favor of theirs. Which is why there is such outrage on the part of the right. I fail to see how granting preferential status is letting let live and let live or doing unto others as one would like done unto yourself. It does not necessarily follow that because one part of society gets a privilege that all others must get the same. Just because the airlines got subsidies for years, does not mean that ALL businesses should get them as well. NOr is it a restriction of those other businesses rights in not getting them.
That I agree with, but gay marriage is and has NOT been so held by the overwhelming majority legal and judicial opinions.
.
The fact is that the marriage license is needed to be legal in all states. That is why the couples brought suit in Mass for the license to be issued.
The legal fact is that it has NOT been held to be a denial of equal protection in 98.4% of the opinions of the justices in the various states as to the denial of gay marriage rights. I don’t think either you or I have the expertise or training to say that all of those justices are wrong. I certainly don’t have that kind of arrogance.
There’s something else I’d like to bring out. As the law currently stands, the person someone has spent the last 10 or 20 years of his life with can have no legal standing to visit his partner in the hospital while the parents or siblings who haven’t spoken to him in 10 or 20 years do because, despite the amount of time they’ve cohabited and shared chores, finances, and joys, they are not related in the eyes of the law. I heard that one of the things driving Vermont’s creation of civil unions was a case in which a gay man died and his family had his body moved from its original burial site without telling his partner, despite the fact that he and his partner had been together for over 20 years. The legal construct of marriage grants one the right to voluntarily choose someone to be one’s next of kin and have the privileges thereof including not only inheritance, but the simple right to hospital visits, etc. It seems to me to be unfair that one’s brother who hasn’t spoken to one in over 20 years because one is gay should have more right to visit and make medical decisions than the person one has loved and shared one’s life with for the intervening years.
The issue has not come before most state supreme courts so they have not rendered an opinion. Your 98.4% figure is innaccurate or at the very least unproven.
Nah. He gets a pass on that based on the way he framed the statement. He did not claim that 98.4% of the justices have disagreed, only that 98.4% of the justices have not [yet] concurred. A justice who has not participated in a ruling has not concurred.
It is a silly argument, but not a mathematically inaccurate one. (I have not bothered to calculate whether the dissenting justices in Goodridge are truly .4% of the supreme court population, so you might nail him on that one.)
It’s still not true, as my other post shows there are other state supreme courts that have ruled on the matter and they have ruled that denying SSM is in violation.
randyjet, it would be nice if you would not use statistics that you make up. When you do so, you’re deliberately lying to us, and it makes it difficult to trust you. It may be that you intend for us to read the statistics as obviously made-up, but that’s not generally how folks use stats around here: when folks give a stat, they generally give one that they’re confident is accurate.
Given that I have already indicated that I find 100% of randyjet’s views on the topic to be bullshit, (in this thread, even), your spluttering about a bad joke while trying to impugn my views is not very productive.
There is, of course, a valid point to what you say in that (by his statistics) ones which have not yet ruled have not declared it a right. But he is specifically ruling out those cases by the comment above – and making it clear he does not fully understand how our legal system works, in passing.
So: let’s run through this one more time.
There is no such thing as a “right to same-sex marriage.” I think Miller, Homebrew and jayjay will concur with that as much as anyone else, once they’ve followed my argument.
There is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.
There is an outstanding argument, not yet resolved, that the present use of the term “marriage” includes same-sex unions contracted to be identical to opposite-sex marital unions – and that under this perspective, equal protection makes marriage a right for gay people on the same grounds as for straight people – the right to marry the willing partner of one’s choice. (Not a dog, toaster, minor child, a commune, the entire Notre Dame football team, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all) This means one adult person with whom one is in love, and who is not otherwise encumbered.
Some states’ right to privacy guarantees have been construed to authorize same-sex marriages.
Many states have laws or constitutional guarantees in place banning such marriages.
A Federal court decision trumps the lot – especially one by SCOTUS.
Let’s note in passing that there are grounds for considering DOMA to be unconstitutional, and that such cases have not yet made their way up the ladder of the court system. And then table that discussion, as it would lead to a major hijack. But I believe in a review of jurisprudence related to the SSM question, it at least needs to be mentioned.
Not every state defined marriage explicitly as between one man and one woman – though many laws had implicit language so suggesting. However, I do not see the use of the terms “husband” and “wife” to necessarily imply “male and female partner, respectively, in an opposite-sex monogamous marriage.” Many persons who have contracted a same-sex marriage extralegally, or in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, etc., refer to their spouses by the traditional term: two men who are each other’s husbands, or two women who are each other’s wives.
I personally think that it is a reasonable argument that, absent a legitimate state purpose, a law delimiting the partners in a marriage to being of opposite sexes violates the Equal Protection Clause. While this might get us into discussion of whether incestuous, consensual bigamous, underage and like marriages are equally violative, I’m focused on the specific question at hand: same-sex marriages that are non-incestuous, non-bigamous, between consenting adults, etc.
Well, 98.4% of them anyway. His use of numbers you “give him a pass on”.
Your saying you ‘give him a pass’ was a joke? Ri-i-i-ght. We’ve seen *that * claim used on this board by those who won’t acknowledge error more than once, haven’t we?
I merely observed that your view, quite adamantly expressed at that, is that most state governments positively disagree that there is a right to single sex marriage. I did not *impugn * that view you and **Randyjet ** hold other than to help point out its falsehood, as others have done as well.
These personal attacks you’ve been making recently are quite out of character, I must say.
Let’s put it another way, from what I can see 5 state supreme courts have taken up the question. It is always possible that I missed a couple. 3 of them say that not allowing SSM is unacceptable, 1 says it’s ok and 1 has not yet rendered a decision.
That gives us 60% of state supreme courts that have spoken on the issue as in favor of allowing SSM.
We’ve seen *that * claim used on this board by those who won’t acknowledge error more than once, haven’t we?